Prisbrey v. State Auto Insurance Companies et al, No. 4:2021cv00124 - Document 152 (D. Utah 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER overruling 142 Objections, denying 143 Motion for Clarification re 137 Memorandum Decision/Order. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 1/3/24 (alt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Prisbrey v. State Auto Insurance Companies et al Doc. 152 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH KENT TERRY PRISBREY, Plaintiff, v. STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES, MILBANK INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES A-Z, Defendants. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION AND DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION Case No. 4:21-cv-00124-DN-DBP District Judge David Nuffer Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed two documents: one titled “Objection to defendants [sic] reply in support of defendants [sic] renewed motion to dismiss with prejudice and JURISDICTION CHALLENGE” (“Objection”); 1 and the other titled “Moves this court to help Kent understand its order # 1737 [sic] denial filed 11/14/23 and Jurisdiction challenge” (“Motion”). 2 The Objection and Motion were filed approximately three weeks after the filing of the document 3 and the order 4 that Plaintiff challenges. The Objection and Motion are also made one week after entry of a memorandum decision and order that granted Defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute and to comply with court orders. 5 1 Docket no. 142, filed Dec. 4, 2023. 2 Docket no. 143, filed Dec. 4, 2023. 3 Defendants’ Reply in Support of Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice, docket no. 136, filed Nov. 13, 2023. 4 Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Motion to Extend In-Home Inspection Deadline or to Set Aside Ordered Inspection (“November 14, 2023 Memorandum Decision and Order”), docket no. 137, filed Nov. 14, 2023. 5 Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, docket no. 139, filed Nov. 27, 2023. Dockets.Justia.com Judgment dismissing this action with prejudice entered on November 27, 2023. 6 Therefore, Plaintiff’s Objection and Motion are untimely. Regardless of their timeliness, Plaintiff’s Objection and Motion lack merit. Plaintiff asserts in his Objection that the docket does not reflect that he responded to Defendant’s renewed motion to dismiss. 7 This assertion is incorrect. The docket reflects that Plaintiff’s response to the renewed motion to dismiss (which Plaintiff titled as an objection) was filed twice: once as an attachment to Defendant’s reply memorandum on November 13, 2023; 8 and once as a stand-alone filing on November 14, 2023. 9 The contents of Plaintiff’s response were considered in the memorandum decision and order that granted Defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss. 10 Plaintiff’s Objection also includes assertions and arguments regarding conflicts of interest between Defendants’ counsel and the court. 11 Plaintiff believes that because attorneys are officers of the court, a conflict of interest and fraud requires recusal and voiding of previous court orders for lack of jurisdiction. 12 Plaintiff has previously made similar frivolous arguments that were rejected. In the same vein, Plaintiff’s Motion includes the same assertions and arguments that Plaintiff raised in his motion seeking to extend or set aside the deadline for an in-home inspection of his property. 13 These arguments were and are factually and legally deficient. And 6 Judgment in a Civil Case, docket no. 140, filed Nov. 27, 2023. 7 Objection at 1. 8 Kent’s Objection to Defendants[’] Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice, docket no. 136-1, filed Nov. 13, 2023. 9 Kent’s Objection to Defendants[’] Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice, docket no. 138, filed Nov. 14, 2023. 10 Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss at 1, 6, 8-12. 11 Objection at 2-3. 12 Id. 13 Direct Court to Se[t A]side/Extend In[-]Home Inspection Date, docket no. 134, filed Oct. 16, 2023. 2 they were rejected and denied in the November 14, 2023 Memorandum Decision and Order. 14 There is no need to further expound or clarify the analysis or effect of the November 14, 2023 Memorandum Decision and Order. The substance of Plaintiff’s Objection and Motion are more examples of Plaintiff’s insistence on disregarding court Rules and orders in favor of presenting his fantastical views of the law and his rights. This conduct is what lead to this case being dismissed as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute and to comply with court orders. 15 Plaintiff’s Objection and Motion are untimely and present no adequate factual or legal basis for the relief Plaintiff seeks. The Objection and Motion are frivolous. ORDER THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Objection 16 is OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion 17 is DENIED. Signed January 3, 2024. BY THE COURT ________________________________________ David Nuffer United States District Judge 14 November 14, 2023 Memorandum Decision and Order at 1-4. 15 Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss at 1-2, 8-12. 16 Docket no. 142, filed Dec. 4, 2023. 17 Docket no. 143, filed Dec. 4, 2023. 3
]]>
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.
