American Contractors Indemnity Company et al v. Leadco, LLC et al

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Memorandum and Order (Doc. No. is 59) denying Defendant Patty Lees motion for summary judgment, granting Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and stating that an order of dismissal shall be issued as to Defendant Gelhaar Lee, is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff and Defendant Patty Lee shall have ten days from the date of this Order to supplement their respective memoranda in supportof their motions for summary judgment in any way they deem necessary, and otherwise respond to Defendant Gelhaar Lees notice of bankruptcy. Response to Court due by 5/23/2014. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 5/13/14. (JWJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS
INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LEADCO, LLC, GELHAAR LEE,
and PATTY LEE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:11CV02126 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case was assigned to United States District Judge Charles A. Shaw. On
March 27, 2014, Judge Shaw denied Defendant Patty Lee’s motion for summary judgment,
granted Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, and stated that he would issue an
order of dismissal as to Defendant Gelhaar Lee based on his filing and discharge in
bankruptcy. Thereafter, but before final judgment was entered, Judge Shaw became
aware of circumstances which might give rise to the need for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 455,1 and upon his order that the case be reassigned to a different district judge, filed on
May 12, 2014, the case was reassigned to the undersigned.
Because Judge Shaw did not learn of the facts indicating a need for recusal until
after he entered his March 27, 2104 Order, vacating that Order is not required. See Davis

Judge Shaw explained to the undersigned that he was acquainted with one of the
parties to the case, whom he knew by a different first name than the name appearing in the
case, and only recently learned of or made the connection with his acquaintance’s formal
name and realized the acquaintance was a party in the case.
1

v. Xerox, 811 F.2d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir. 1987). Nevertheless, to avoid any appearance of
impropriety, the Court will do so.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Memorandum and Order (Doc. No. is 59)
denying Defendant Patty Lee’s motion for summary judgment, granting Plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment, and stating that an order of dismissal shall be issued as to
Defendant Gelhaar Lee, is VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff and Defendant Patty Lee shall have
ten days from the date of this Order to supplement their respective memoranda in support
of their motions for summary judgment in any way they deem necessary, and otherwise
respond to Defendant Gelhaar Lee’s notice of bankruptcy.

Audrey G. Fleissig
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 13th day of May, 2014.

2