Free Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF Document 37 Filed 08/25/2005 Page1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CATHY D. BROOKS—MCCOLLUM :
Plaintiff, S
v. E Civil Action No. 04-419 JJF
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, ;
Defendant. E
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s (1) Motion For
Reargument (D.I. 26), (2) Motion For Miscellaneous Relief (D.I.
16), and (3) Motion For Summary Judgment (D.I. 18). For the
reasons discussed, the Motions will be denied.
I. Plaintiff's Motion For Reargument (D.I. 26)
By its Order dated March 31, 2005 (D.I. 24), the Court
denied Plaintiff’s Motion For Indemnification (D.I. 5) because,
inte; alia, the Court was estopped from reviewing the
indemnification issue, which had already been decided by the
Chancery Court. By her Motion For Reargument Pursuant To
Delaware District Court Local Rule 7.1.5, Plaintiff contends that
the Court erred in applying collateral estoppel because the
Chancery Court decision involved different Defendants. The Court
disagrees.
One form of collateral estoppel is defensive nonmutual
estoppel. See Blonder—Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Illinois
Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 {1971). Such estoppel “occurs when a
defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim the

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF Document 37 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 2 of 4
plaintiff has previously litigated and lost against another
defendant." Parklane Hosiery v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n.4
(1979). Such is the case here. In its response to Plaintiff's
Motion For Indemnification (D.I. 5), State Farm sought to prevent
Plaintiff from asserting the same claim she lost in Chancery
Court, namely, her claim that the Emerald Ridge Bylaws entitled
her to indemnification. Because collateral estoppel bars
relitigation of the issue, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion
for Reargument.
II. Plaintiff's Motion For Miscellaneous Relief (D.I. 16)
Defendant State Farm Insurance Company (“State Farm")
formerly entered into an insurance contract with Emerald Ridge
Service Corporation (“Emerald Ridge"). Pursuant to the contract,
State Farm is defending Emerald Ridge and its directors in the
lawsuits brought by Plaintiff against them. By her Motion For
Miscellaneous Relief (D.I. 16), Plaintiff contends that State
Farm should indemnify her, rather than defending Emerald Ridge
and its directors. Because this contention is repeated in
Plaintiff's later Motion For Summary Judgment (D.I. 18), the
Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment
supercedes her Motion For Miscellaneous Relief. Thus, the Court
will consider Plaintiff’s contention in full in its discussion of
Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment, and therefore,
Plaintiff’s Motion For Miscellaneous Relief will be denied.
2

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF Document 37 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 3 of 4
III. P1aintiff’s Motion For Sum ary Judgment (D.I. 18)
By her Motion For Summary Judgment (D.I. 18), Plaintiff
contends that State Farm should indemnify her, rather than
insuring Emerald Ridge and its directors. Plaintiff further
asserts various other allegations, including violations of her
rights under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. In
response, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Motion is premature
as discovery has yet to be completed.
In relevant part, Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that a party is entitled to summary judgment
if a court determines from its examination of “the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any,” that there are no genuine
issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
In this case, discovery has not yet commenced. Thus, at
this juncture, the Court cannot conclude that there are no
genuine issues of material fact and that Plaintiff is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court will deny
Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment (D.I. 18) with leave to
renew following the completion of discovery.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this é§ifday of August
2005, that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion For Reargument (D.I. 26) is DENIED;
3

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF Document 37 Filed 08/25/2005 Page4of4
2. Plaintiff’s Motion For Miscellaneous Relief (D.I. 16) is
DENIED; and
3. Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment (D.I. 18) is
DENIED with leave to renew after the completion of discovery in
this case.
(
F ED DISTRIC J DGE
)
k.
4

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF

Document 37

Filed 08/25/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF

Document 37

Filed 08/25/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF

Document 37

Filed 08/25/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF

Document 37

Filed 08/25/2005

Page 4 of 4