BOYD v. AIRGAS-MID SOUTH, INC., 3:13CV00247 JM. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20141007a76
Visitors: 19
Filed: Oct. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, Jr., District Judge. Pending is the motion for summary judgment filed by Separate Third-Party Defendant, Hardy Little and Associates, Inc. ("Little"), (docket # 27), seeking a dismissal of all claims asserted against it by Airgas-Mid South, Inc. ("Airgas") in its Third-Party Complaint. Airgas has filed a response and Little has filed a reply. In support of its Response, Airgas includes a Rule 56(d) affidavit stating that it is unable to adequately respond to factual stat
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, Jr., District Judge. Pending is the motion for summary judgment filed by Separate Third-Party Defendant, Hardy Little and Associates, Inc. ("Little"), (docket # 27), seeking a dismissal of all claims asserted against it by Airgas-Mid South, Inc. ("Airgas") in its Third-Party Complaint. Airgas has filed a response and Little has filed a reply. In support of its Response, Airgas includes a Rule 56(d) affidavit stating that it is unable to adequately respond to factual state..
More
ORDER
JAMES M. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.
Pending is the motion for summary judgment filed by Separate Third-Party Defendant, Hardy Little and Associates, Inc. ("Little"), (docket # 27), seeking a dismissal of all claims asserted against it by Airgas-Mid South, Inc. ("Airgas") in its Third-Party Complaint. Airgas has filed a response and Little has filed a reply. In support of its Response, Airgas includes a Rule 56(d) affidavit stating that it is unable to adequately respond to factual statements contained in the motion and needs additional time to engage in discovery. Additionally, since the filing of the pending motion for summary judgment, Airgis has filed an Amended-Third Party Complaint asserting additional claims of negligence against Little. The Court finds the motion for summary judgment premature, additional discovery may provide Airgas sufficient facts to support its opposition to the pending motion. The motion will be denied at this time, without prejudice to re-file following the completion of discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
