ORDER

SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge.

Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 69) and certain Defendants' Motion to Extend Court's Ruling on the Notice Provision. (ECF No. 86). This is an action seeking a declaratory judgment as to the rights and obligations of the parties pursuant to an insurance policy issued by Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks a declaration from the Court regarding its contractual obligations to defend and indemnify Defendant-Insureds in cases before this Court and Arkansas state courts: Kolbek, et al. v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, et al., No. 4:10-cv-04124; Ondirsek, et al. v. Hoffman, No. 4:08-cv-04113; Coie v. Alamo, et al., No. CV-2009-1854(V), Circuit Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas; Kolbek, et al. v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church Inc., et al., No. 46CV-14-8-2, Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas.

Since the filing of the parties' motions and the filing of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 100), the composition of this case has changed dramatically. Many of the Defendant-Insureds who were parties in Kolbek, et al. v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, et al., No. 4:10-cv-04124 have had the claims against them settled and/or dismissed. The final dismissal of all claims in Kolbek, et al. v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, et al., No. 4:10-cv-04124 was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 11, 2014. Thus, for some of the Defendant-Insureds in this action, there may be no current claims against them in an underlying suit that would implicate Plaintiff's insurance policies.

In light of these developments, the Court finds that updated motions are necessary. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 69) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Individual Defendants' Motion to Extend Court's Ruling on the Notice Provision (ECF No. 86) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Any motions for summary judgment must be filed on or before October 14, 2014. The Court asks that the parties explicitly address the current disposition of each underlying causes of action referenced in the Third Amended Complaint as well as any newly filed actions that may implicate Plaintiff's insurance policies. The Court also requests that the parties fully discuss, with supporting law, whether a justiciable controversy still exists as to the insurance coverage of Defendant-Insureds whose claims in the underlying suit(s) have been settled and/or dismissed.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.