From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

IGF Ins. Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
Mar 20, 2012
1:01-cv-799-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind. Mar. 20, 2012)

Opinion

1:01-cv-799-RLY-MJD

03-20-2012

IGF INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, and 1911 CORP., Counter-Plaintiffs and Third-Party Plaintiffs, IGF INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Counter-Defendants, and Third-Party Defendants.


ORDER ON CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE

ALAN AND GORDON SYMONS' MOTION TO AMEND FINDINGS AND TO

ENTER JUDGMENT IN THEIR FAVOR

Continental Casualty Company ("CCC") moves to strike Alan and Gordon Symons' Motion to Amend Findings and to Enter Judgment in Their Favor ("Motion to Amend"). CCC argues that this Motion comes too late, and is brought only to further delay these proceedings. Although this Motion was filed approximately two and-a-half years after the court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, to date, there has been no final judgment. Given the unusual procedural posture of this case, Alan and Gordon Symons' Motion to Amend is treated as a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order.

A district court retains the power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory orders at any time prior to the entry of final judgment. Fisher v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 152 F.R.D. 145, 149 (S.D. Ind. 1993) ("[I]t is well established that a district court has the inherent power to reconsider interlocutory orders and reopen any part of a case before entry of final judgment."); Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1469 (4th Cir. 1991) ("An interlocutory order is subject to reconsideration at any time prior to the entry of a final judgment."); cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) (providing that interlocutory orders that resolve fewer than all claims "may be revised at any time before the entry of a [final] judgment"). Whether to grant or deny such a motion is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Azko Coatings, Inc. v. Aigner Corp., 909 F.Supp. 1154, 1159 (N.D. Ind. 1995).

The court, in its discretion, finds CCC's Motion to Strike should be denied for three reasons. First, the Motion to Amend is timely filed, as odd as that may sound, because it is filed before the entry of a final judgment. Fayetteville, 936 F.2d at 1469. Second, motions to strike motions to reconsider are generally disfavored. See, e.g., Mergentime Corp. v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 166 F.3d 1257, 1263 (C.D. Cir. 1999) (stating that a district judge does not have the discretion to refuse to grant or deny post-trial motions); see also 121 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2818, at 194 (2d ed. 1995) ("If the trial judge has failed to exercise discretion at all, as when he is under the mistaken apprehension that he has no power to grant the relief sought, the appellate court can review that decision and can order the judge to exercise his discretion."). Finally, if the court made a mistake of fact or law, as alleged by Alan and Gordon Symons, the court finds it best to correct the record prior to the entry of final judgment.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that CCC's Motion to Strike Alan and Gordon Symons' Motion to Amend Findings and to Enter Judgment in Their Favor (Docket # 362) is DENIED. CCC shall have forty (40) days from the date of this Order to respond to the merits of Alan and Gordon Symons' Motion.

______________________________

RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE

United States District Court

Southern District of Indiana

Electronic Copies to:

Arend J. Abel

COHEN & MALAD LLP

aabel@cohenandmalad.com

Robert M. Baker III

rbaker@rbakerlaw.net

Michael J. Blinn

COHEN & MALAD LLP

mblinn@cohenandmalad.com

James A. Hardgrove

SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD LLP

jhardgrove@sidley.com

Jeffrey Lynn McKean

WOODEN & MCLAUGHLIN LLP

drichards@woodmaclaw.com

Robert L. McLaughlin

WOODEN & MCLAUGHLIN LLP

rmclaughlin@woodmaclaw.com

Patricia M. Petrowski

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

ppetrowski@sidley.com

Michael Rabinowitch

WOODEN & MCLAUGHLIN LLP

mrabinowitch@woodmclaw.com

Ellen S. Robbins

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

erobbins@sidley.com

Kevin M. Fitzgerald

NIXON PEADBODY LLP

kfitzgerald@nixonpeabody.com

Michael H. Michmerhuizen

BARRETT & McNAGNY LLP

mhm@barrettlaw.com

Mary F. Schmid

STEWART & IRWIN, P.C.

mschmid@silegal.com

Edward Paul Grimmer

AUSTGEN KULPER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

egrimmer@austenlaw.com

Thomas J. Dillon

McFADDEN & DILLON, P.C.

t.dillon@mcdillaw.com

W. Daniel Deane

NIXON PEABODY LLP

ddeane@nixonpeabody.com

Michael B. Knight

COLLIGNON & DIETRICK, P.C.

mknight@cdattorneys.com

Patrick J. Dietrick

COLLIGNON & DIETRICK

pdietrick@cdattorneys.com

Copy to:

Dale R. Crider

CNA Center

222 S. Wabash Ave., 43rd Fl.

Chicago, IL 60604


Summaries of

IGF Ins. Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
Mar 20, 2012
1:01-cv-799-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind. Mar. 20, 2012)
Case details for

IGF Ins. Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.

Case Details

Full title:IGF INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

Date published: Mar 20, 2012

Citations

1:01-cv-799-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind. Mar. 20, 2012)