Jo Ann Howard and Associates, P.C. et al v. Cassity et al

Filing 1562

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 1540 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1535 Memorandum & Order, filed by Defendant J. Douglas Cassity. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant J. Douglas Cassitys Motion to Reconsider Memorandum and Order of May 9, 2014 Re: Quashing of Subpoena [ECF No. 1540] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on May 21, 2014. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JO ANN HOWARD &
ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
J. DOUGLAS CASSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:09CV01252 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant J. Douglas Cassity’s “Motion to
Reconsider Memorandum and Order of May 9, 2014 Re: Quashing of Subpoena” [ECF No.
1540].
In his Motion, J. Douglas Cassity moves the Court to reconsider its May 9, 2014 Order, in
which the Court: 1) struck an affirmative mitigation-of-damages defense asserted in this matter
by another defendant, National City; and 2) quashed a subpoena National City served on a nonparty arbitrator involved in an arbitration proceeding between a non-party reinsurer, Hannover
Life Reassurance Company of America (“Hannover”), and another party defendant, Lincoln
Memorial Insurance Company (“Lincoln”) [ECF No. 1535]. In his argument for the Court to
reconsider its decision to quash the subpoena, J. Douglas Cassity also is requesting the Court to
order an evidentiary hearing regarding Hannover’s alleged “fraudulent ‘strategy’ of driving
Lincoln into liquidation” during the arbitration proceeding [ECF No. 1540 at 3]. The Court
finds that J. Douglas Cassity lacks standing to challenge the Court’s May 9, 2014 Order, because
he does not have a personal interest in National City’s ability to assert an affirmative defense to

the claims brought against it, or in National City’s right to seek information in this matter. The
question of standing generally challenges whether a party is the proper one to request an
adjudication of a particular issue. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99-100 (1968). The Court will
deny Defendant J. Douglas Cassity’s Motion to Reconsider.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant J. Douglas Cassity’s “Motion to Reconsider
Memorandum and Order of May 9, 2014 Re: Quashing of Subpoena” [ECF No. 1540] is
DENIED.
Dated this

21st

day of May, 2014.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

\

2