Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

AMERIS BANK v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, CV413-241. (2016)

Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia Number: infdco20160929a98 Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2016
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr. , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Lexington Insurance Company's ("Lexington") Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 85.) The Court previously granted Plaintiff Ameris Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment on its claim for breach of contract. (Doc. 82.) In addition, the Court permitted Defendants Lexington and Coastal Biofuels, Inc. ("Coastal") the opportunity to submit additional briefing regarding the issue of Defendant Lexington's entitlement to
More

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Lexington Insurance Company's ("Lexington") Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 85.) The Court previously granted Plaintiff Ameris Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment on its claim for breach of contract. (Doc. 82.) In addition, the Court permitted Defendants Lexington and Coastal Biofuels, Inc. ("Coastal") the opportunity to submit additional briefing regarding the issue of Defendant Lexington's entitlement to indemnity from Defendant Coastal. (Doc. 83.)

In response, Defendant Lexington filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. However, rather than actually take the time to brief the Court on the issue of indemnification, Defendant Lexington seeks to have its response to an earlier motion serve as its brief in support of the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 85, ¶ 6.) This Court does not accept piecemeal briefs that incorporate by reference arguments contained in other filings, leaving this Court with the dubious task of having to sift through filings and assemble a party's argument.

Therefore, Defendant Lexington's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 85) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and it is DIRECTED to file within forty-five days from the date of this order a new, freestanding motion for summary judgment. Both parties should be aware that the Court will not accept any filing that incorporates by reference any portion of an earlier filing. Defendant Lexington's motion, as well as Defendant Biofuel's response, should be stand-alone filings that independently contain all the arguments the parties wish the Court to consider.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer