Matherne v IPC New Orleans I, LLC et al, No. 2:2013cv03936 - Document 85 (E.D. La. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER & REASONS denying 78 Motion for Declaratory Judgment. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 10/16/2014. (mmm)

Download PDF

Matherne v IPC New Orleans I, LLC et al Doc. 85 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA PATRICIA G. MATHERNE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 13-3936 IPC NEW ORLEANS I, LLC, ET AL. SECTION “N” (2) ORDER AND REASONS Presently before the Court is a motion for declaratory judgment (R. Doc. 78) filed by Defendant ABM Security Services, Inc. (hereinafter “ABM”). On the showing made, IT IS ORDERED that ABM's motion is DENIED. An order of dismissal (R. Doc. 69) was entered in this matter on May 20, 2014, based on a settlement of all pending claims. Thereafter, upon request of the parties, including Defendant ABM, the Court entered orders of dismissals with prejudice on July 22, 2014 and August 13, 2014. See R. Docs. 74 and 77. No motion is pending before the Court asking that any of those orders be set aside and the matter re-opened. Moreover, as reflected in ABM's April 8, 2014 memorandum filed in support of its motion seeking to continue trial, no crossclaim was ever filed in this matter (see R. Docs. 39 and 39-1, p. 2),1 and now is not the time to do so. Any declaratory relief to which ABM may be entitled against Zurich American Insurance Company will have to be asserted in a separate, properly instituted lawsuit. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of October 2014. _________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT United States District Judge 1 The parties' April 11, 2014 pre-trial order (Rec. Doc. 45) likewise does not reflect the existence of any cross-claims. Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.