MANPOWER INC. v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, 08-C-0085. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Number: infdco20120621d54
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2012
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER LYNN ADELMAN, District Judge. In my prior order in this case, I resolved the last outstanding issue and asked the parties to advise me whether I needed to address any other matters before entering final judgment. Manpower responded by filing a motion to stay further proceedings in this case pending the outcome of litigation in France. However, since all outstanding issues in this case have been resolved, there is nothing left to stay. The issue pending in France is whether
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER LYNN ADELMAN, District Judge. In my prior order in this case, I resolved the last outstanding issue and asked the parties to advise me whether I needed to address any other matters before entering final judgment. Manpower responded by filing a motion to stay further proceedings in this case pending the outcome of litigation in France. However, since all outstanding issues in this case have been resolved, there is nothing left to stay. The issue pending in France is whether t..
More
DECISION AND ORDER
LYNN ADELMAN, District Judge.
In my prior order in this case, I resolved the last outstanding issue and asked the parties to advise me whether I needed to address any other matters before entering final judgment. Manpower responded by filing a motion to stay further proceedings in this case pending the outcome of litigation in France. However, since all outstanding issues in this case have been resolved, there is nothing left to stay. The issue pending in France is whether the "local" policy issued by AIG-Europe (now known as Chartis-France) covers Manpower's loss. But, pursuant to Manpower's request, I have already resolved that issue for purposes of litigation in this court by ruling that the local policy does cover the loss. See April 13, 2012, Decision and Order, ECF No. 200. Manpower has developed no argument in support of the proposition that I could or must change my ruling if the French court disagrees with me and determines that the local policy does not cover the loss. Thus, Manpower is bound by my ruling no matter what happens in France. For that reason, a stay of this case would serve no purpose, and I will enter final judgment in favor of ISOP.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Manpower's motion to stay further proceedings in this case is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment.
Source: Leagle
