Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wesco Insurance Co. v. Archer Landscape Group, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division

June 11, 2018

WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF
v.
ARCHER LANDSCAPE GROUP, LLC; GERALD SELLERS; RICHARD STRACHAN; and TIMOTHY BRASFIELD DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION

          DEBRA M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This declaratory judgment action is before the Court on Timothy Brasfield's motion seeking reconsideration of the August 25, 2017, order[1] denying his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Doc. #20.

         I Background

         On October 5, 2015, Brasfield filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Alcorn County, Mississippi, against Archer Landscape Group, LLC, Gerald Sellers (individually and d/b/a Archer Landscape Group, LLC), and Richard Strachan. Doc. #1 at 14. Brasfield's state court complaint alleges claims for general and special acts of negligence related to injuries he suffered on or about November 30, 2013, when, while working as an employee of Archer Landscape, he was “grabbed by a piece of … machinery and pulled into the equipment causing [him] serious and permanent bodily injury.” Id. at 15-16.

         On September 9, 2016, Wesco Insurance Company filed a complaint in this Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the insurance policy it issued to Archer Landscape included a valid employer's liability exclusion and, as a result of the exclusion, Wesco “has no duty to defend, or indemnify, Archer Landscape … and/or Gerald Sellers, related to the claims asserted against them in the Circuit Court of Alcorn County, Mississippi, by Mr. Timothy Brasfield.” Doc. #1 at 1, 12. That day, the case was assigned to United States District Judge Sharion Aycock.

         On December 12, 2016, Brasfield moved to dismiss Wesco's complaint “due to a lack of jurisdiction, said jurisdiction being vested in the state court prior to the filing in federal court.”[2]Doc. #14 at 4. Wesco responded in opposition on December 27, 2016. Doc. #15. On August 25, 2017, Judge Aycock denied Brasfield's motion to dismiss. Doc. #17.

         One week later, Brasfield filed a motion for reconsideration of the August 25 order. Doc. #20. Wesco responded in opposition on September 15, 2017. Doc. #24. On October 11, 2017, Judge Aycock recused herself and the case was assigned to the undersigned district judge. Doc. #25.

         On February 5, 2018, Wesco filed a motion to amend its complaint because the “Complaint on file with the Clerk appears to be missing page number 13. However, the records maintained by counsel for [Wesco] reflect that page 13 was submitted to the Clerk for filing at the time of the initial filing of this mater.” Doc. #36 at 1. Brasfield did not respond, and the motion to amend was granted on February 27, 2018. Doc. #37. Wesco filed its amended complaint the same day.[3]Doc. #38.

         II Relevant Standard

         Where a party seeks reconsideration of a non-final order, the proper course is to treat the motion as brought under Rule 54(b).[4] Bombardier Corp. v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 333 F.3d 250, 253 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“[O]rders denying motions to dismiss are not final decisions because such orders ensure that litigation will continue ….”); see Lucas v. District of Columbia, 214 F.Supp.3d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2016) (“[I]nasmuch as plaintiff seeks reconsideration of a non-final order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) governs ….”). Under Rule 54(b):

[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

Although the source of the court's authority to revise or amend an order or judgment is different for interlocutory orders than for final orders or judgments, many of the same policy considerations apply both to motions for reconsideration under Rule 54(b) and to motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.