Southern v. Asbestos Processing LLC et al

Filing 86

ORDER directing parties to brief the court on the issue of whether the breach offiduciary duty claim could remain in this case even if the court were to find that the Plaintiffs had no viable workers' compensation claims as urged by Defendants in their motion for summary judgment. Supplement briefs due by 10/11/2012. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 09/27/2012. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION

Odell Parker; Ruth Parker; Larry
Southern; Roy Southern; Yvonne Harris;
and Barbara Patterson, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated in
the State of South Carolina,

)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Asbestos Processing, LLC; Richard H.
)
Bishoff, PC; Richard H. Bishoff; and
)
John Deakle,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

C.A. No. 0:11-cv-01800-JFA

ORDER

This court heard argument on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 61) on September 26, 2012. Near the conclusion of the hearing, Plaintiffs raised an
argument that they had not previously raised in their briefs—namely, that Plaintiffs’
claim of breach of fiduciary duty could survive the motion for summary judgment even if
this court finds that Plaintiffs had no viable workers’ compensation claims at the time
they retained Defendants. Defendants’ counsel then briefly refuted Plaintiffs’ argument
though he was unable to prepare in advance to discuss that point.
The court would like for the parties to further explain whether the breach of
fiduciary duty claim could remain in this case even if the court were to find that the
Plaintiffs had no viable workers’ compensation claims as urged by Defendants in their

1

motion for summary judgment. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs on
this issue on or before October 11, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 27, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2