CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. TCN034699 v. BELL, 5:13-cv-113-DCB-MTP. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20141125b68
Visitors: 15
Filed: Nov. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER DAVID BRAMLETTE, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs', Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's Subscribing to Policy No. TCN034699 and TAPCO Underwriters, Inc. ("the Underwriters"), Motion for Summary Judgment [docket entry no. 25]. Three days after the Defendants, Emma and John Bell, filed their Memorandum in Opposition, a state court decision was rendered in favor of the Underwriters. The Underwriters argue in their Reply that this decision should be given preclusiv
Summary: ORDER DAVID BRAMLETTE, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs', Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's Subscribing to Policy No. TCN034699 and TAPCO Underwriters, Inc. ("the Underwriters"), Motion for Summary Judgment [docket entry no. 25]. Three days after the Defendants, Emma and John Bell, filed their Memorandum in Opposition, a state court decision was rendered in favor of the Underwriters. The Underwriters argue in their Reply that this decision should be given preclusive..
More
ORDER
DAVID BRAMLETTE, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs', Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's Subscribing to Policy No. TCN034699 and TAPCO Underwriters, Inc. ("the Underwriters"), Motion for Summary Judgment [docket entry no. 25]. Three days after the Defendants, Emma and John Bell, filed their Memorandum in Opposition, a state court decision was rendered in favor of the Underwriters. The Underwriters argue in their Reply that this decision should be given preclusive effect by the Court. The Bells have not responded to this argument. The Court finds it necessary to hear from the Bells as to what preclusive effect, if any, should be given to the state court decision cited in the Reply [docket entry no. 30] and the Notice of Supplemental Authority [docket entry no. 32]. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants, Emma and John Bell, shall file a response to the new arguments raised by plaintiffs in the Reply. The response shall be filed within two weeks of the date of entry of this order.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
