Richardson v. Munninghoff Lange & Co et al, No. 3:2010cv00124 - Document 136 (D.S.C. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 126 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 1/6/2011.(cbru, )
Download PDF
Richardson v. Munninghoff Lange & Co et al Doc. 136 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Scott R. Richardson, Director of the South Carolina Department of Insurance, as Rehabilitator of Capital Assurance Risk Retention Group, Inc., ) ) Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-00124-CMC ) ) OPINION AND ORDER ) ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Munninghoff, Lange & Co., et al., ) __________________________________ ) Plaintiff s motion to reconsider one aspect of the order granting partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 83) is denied. This denial is without prejudice to raising the same arguments by motion in limine prior to trial or in opposition to any motion for summary judgment which may rely on the challenged language in the earlier order. That language relates to Plaintiff s lack of standing to assert claims on behalf of persons or entities other than Capital Assurance Risk Retention Group, Inc. ( CARRG ). The present record is inadequate to allow the court to make a fully informed decision, in part, because Plaintiff fails to (1) specify the full language sought to be removed from the order; (2) explain how elimination of that language would impact the rationale and ruling in the order sought to be modified; (3) explain how modification of the order would impact issues yet to be decided; or (4) identify which claims, if any, are pursued on behalf of individuals or entities other than CARRG.1 These and related issues were raised in Defendants opposition memorandum but were 1 The complaint is pursued in Plaintiff s capacity as rehabilitator for CARRG. It does not expressly purport to assert claims of third-parties but does, in several instances, refer to derivative damages suffered by CARRG and its creditors, including the VSC Holders because CARRG s insolvency went unreported and progressively deepened. See Dkt. No. 1-1 ΒΆΒΆ 42, 44, 54, 55, 82, 83, 101, 102. not addressed by Plaintiff on reply. See Dkt. No. 129 at 2 (noting Plaintiff fails to explain how expanding his standing will impact his damages, his causation issues, or Defendants affirmative defenses. ); id. at 12 (noting that no claims are pursued on behalf of individuals or entities other than CARRG); id. at 13-15 (raising additional concerns arguably presented by the proposed expansion of standing). Wherefore, Plaintiff s motion to reconsider is denied without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina January 6, 2011 2