NOT FOR PUBLICATION

LETTER OPINION

MICHAEL A. SHIPP, District Judge.

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jacobsen and Counsel.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Robert and Carol Jacobsens's ("Plaintiffs") "motion for summary judgments" filed in each of the above referenced matters.1 Defendant Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford ("Hartford-Property" or "Defendant") submitted correspondence in opposition.2

Plaintiffs' submission is a three-page document that lists several docket numbers (including appellate matters). The submission indicates it is "a follow up memorandum; regarding plaintiffs pleadings motions July 31, 2017," (verbatim) (Pls.' Submission 2.) The referenced submission appears to be correspondence asking the Clerk's office to provide copies of electronic files (ECF No. 150).3 The submission is a confusing array of statements and list of purported damages. The submission states that "hopefully this motion for summary judgment will settle the filings, the cases, the appeals `within' the federal district court system" and lists claimed damage amounts from each case. (Pls.' Submission 2.)

As an initial matter, case No. 13-7160 is closed. Summary Judgment was granted in favor of Defendant on all claims on March 31, 2017 (No. 13-7160, ECF No. 140) and Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on June 12, 2017 (No. 13-7160, ECF No. 145). The purported motion in this case, therefore, is improper and will be terminated.

In the other two matters, No. 14-3094 and No. 13-6910, the Court already decided motions for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs and Defendant. (ECF No. 127.) At this time, Hartford-Property is the only remaining Defendant with limited claims proceeding to trial. Specifically, the scope of the remaining issues are: (1) what property insured under the Hartford-Property Policy was damaged during each of the two storms by wind or wind-driven rain; and (2) what is the value or cost to repair such damaged property under the terms and conditions of the Policy. (See Def.'s Oct. 6, 2017 Correspondence 2, ECF No. 165.) Plaintiffs' Submission does not substantively address either of these issues. In addition, none of the purported motions contain a notice of motion, memorandum of law, or Local Civil Rule 56.1 statement of undisputed material facts.

For all of the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' purported motions for summary judgment are procedurally and substantively deficient. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motions are DENIED. An Order consistent with this Letter Opinion will be entered.