Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02635/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02635-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 Jay A. Morrow, D.D.S., 

Plaintiff, 

v.

 Boston Mutual Life Insurance Co., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-2635-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court are Defendants Behavioral Management, Inc. (“BMI”) and Dr.

Bettina Kilburn’s (“BMI Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 93), and

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike declarations and corresponding statements of facts submitted

in connection with BMI Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 107).

The issues in this case have changed significantly since the filing of these motions. 

The Court dismissed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortious

interference with business expectancy as against BMI Defendants. (Dkt. 157, Order

dated Nov. 5, 2007.) BMI Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore moot

as to these claims. The Court also determined that Plaintiff’s claim for “substantial

assistance to breach of fiduciary duty” is more properly characterized as a claim for

aiding and abetting bad faith. (Id. at 5.) BMI Defendants’ arguments for summary

judgment on that claim fail to address it as an aiding and abetting claim, because the

recharacterization occurred after BMI Defendants filed their Motion for Summary

Case 2:06-cv-02635-SMM Document 176 Filed 01/25/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Judgment. Additionally, Plaintiff opposed BMI Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment—in part—on the grounds that discovery had not provided Plaintiff with

sufficient information at that time. (See Dkt. 101 at 3.) The exchange of discoverable

materials and resolution of discovery issues have presumably provided Plaintiff with

more information since that time. 

The Court finds that resolution of the issues raised in BMI Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment would be best served by denying the motions and permitting the

parties to refile them to reflect the current status of this matter. This decision renders

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike moot. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying without prejudice BMI Defendants’ Motion

for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 93). BMI Defendants may file a motion for summary

judgment, revised to reflect the current status of this matter, by the July 11, 2008

dispositive motion deadline (see Dkt. 167).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt.

107).

DATED this 24th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02635-SMM Document 176 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 2