Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_13-cv-01692/USCOURTS-alnd-1_13-cv-01692-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Economy Pest Control
Defendant
Andrew Hunter
Defendant
Danny Joe Poore
Defendant
Carlos Slaght
Defendant
Joan Slaght
Defendant
Sparta Insurance Company
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

SPARTA INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANNY JOE POORE, et al,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-CV-1692-VEH

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This is a declaratory judgment action filed by the plaintiff, SPARTA Insurance

Company (“SPARTA”) against its insureds, the defendants, Danny Joe Poore d/b/a

Economy Pest Control , Carlos Slaght, Joan Slaght, and Andrew Hunter. (Doc. 1). 1

The plaintiff seeks, inter alia, a declaration that it is not required to indemnify or

provide a defense for the defendants in underlying lawsuits filed against them in the

Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama.

The case comes before the court on the motion to dismiss filed by defendants

Carlos Slaght, Joan Slaght, and Andrew Hunter, pursuant to Rule 19 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 17). In the alternative, these defendants ask the

Economy Pest Control is at times referred to in the complaint as “EPC.” 1

FILED

 2013 Dec-03 PM 01:17

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 16
court to stay this case “until consideration of the joinder of indispensable parties and

their appearance and answer.” (Doc. 17 at 3). The motion was filed on October 28,

2013. (Doc. 17). The court’s non-summary judgment motion scheduling order

provides that the plaintiff’s response to that motion was due “no later than fourteen

(14) calendar days thereafter,” (doc. 4 at 23) which in this case would have been

November 11, 2013. That day being a Federal Holiday, the response was due

November 12, 2013. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). On November 15, 2013, the plaintiff

filed a response to the motion. (Doc. 19). The court’s scheduling order provides that

any reply was due “no later than seven (7) calendar days after the date on which the

opponent’s responsive brief was due.” (Doc. 4 at 23). Using the date on which the

response was actually filed, the reply would have been due on November 22, 2013. 

As of the date of this opinion, the movants have not filed a reply.

For the reasons stated herein, the motion will be DENIED.

I. STANDARD

Under Rule 19 and Rule 12(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a

party may move to dismiss an action if a “required” party cannot feasibly be joined. 

“With respect to motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7), the “‘courts are loathe

to grant motionsto dismiss ofthistype.”’ Microsoft Corp. v. Cietdirect.com LLC, 08-

60668-CIV, 2008 WL 3162535 at *5 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2008) (quoting Sever v.

2

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 2 of 16
Glickman, 298 F.Supp.2d 267, 275 (D.Conn.2004)). The party moving for dismissal

of the case bears the burden of proof in a motion to dismiss for failure to join an

indispensable party under Rule 12(b)(7). West Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach

County 41 F.3d 1490, 1492 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing 5A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur

R. Miller and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1359); see also

Am. Gen. Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Wood, 429 F.3d 83, 92 (4th Cir. 2005) (“The burden

of proof rests on the party raising the defense . . . to ‘show that the person who was

not joined is needed for a just adjudication.’”) (quoting 7 Charles Alan Wright,

Arthur R. Miller and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1609 (3d

ed.2001)). 

“[A] ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary and

indispensable party requires the Court to accept the allegations of the complaint as

true, and the Court may go outside the pleadings and look at extrinsic evidence.” 

Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Aecon Grp., Inc., 436 F. Supp. 2d 931, 933 (N.D. Ill. 2006)

(citing Davis Cos. v. Emerald Casino, Inc., 268 F.3d 477, 479-80 nn. 2, 4 (7th

Cir.2001)); see also, U.S. ex rel. Century Ready Mix Corp. v. N. Am. Specialty Ins.

Co., 72 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1372 at *1 (W.D. Ark. 2009) (Barnes, J.) (same); Microsoft

Corp. v. Cietdirect.com LLC, 08-60668-CIV, 2008 WL 3162535 at *5 (S.D. Fla. Aug.

5, 2008) (Ungaro, J.) (same). “A Rule 12(b)(7) motion will not be granted because

3

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 3 of 16
of a vague possibility that persons who are not parties may have an interest in the

action.” Raytheon Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 123 F. Supp. 2d 22, 32 (D. Mass.

2000).

The Eleventh Circuit has explained:

Rule 19 is a two-step inquiry. First, we determine whether the parties .

. . are “required” parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a); see also Temple v. Synthes

Corp., 498 U.S. 5, 7, 111 S.Ct. 315, 316, 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990). If

they are required parties, but cannot be joined . . . Rule 19(b) provides

a list of factors to “determine whether, in equity and good conscience,

the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be

dismissed.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(b).

Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330, 1344 (11th Cir. 2011).

“Inmaking the first determination-i.e., whether the party in question should be joined,

pragmatic concerns, especially the effect on the parties and the litigation, control.” 

Focus on the Family v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth., 344 F.3d 1263, 1280 (11th

Cir. 2003) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

The proponent of a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(7) has the burden of

producing evidence showing the nature of the interest possessed by an

absent party and that the protection of that interest will be impaired by

the absence. Ilan–Gat Eng'rs, Ltd. v. Antigua Int'l Bank, 659 F.2d 234,

242 (D.C.Cir.1981); Martin v. Local 147, Int'l Bro. of Painters, 775

F.Supp. 235, 236–37 (N.D.Ill.1991); Ashley v. American Airlines, Inc.,

738 F.Supp. 783, 788 (S.D.N.Y.1990). The proponent’s burden can be

satisfied by providing “affidavits of persons having knowledge of these

interests as well as other relevant extra-pleading evidence.” Martin, 775

F.Supp. at 236 (quoting 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1359, at 427 (1990)).

4

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 4 of 16
Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. Collier, 17 F.3d 1292, 1293

(10th Cir. 1994); see also, Weeks v. Hous. Auth. of City of Opp, Ala., 86 Fed. R. Serv.

3d 849 (M.D. Ala. 2013) (Fuller, J.) (citing Collier); Davis v. CDA, Inc., 1:09-CV406-WKW, 2010 WL 454909 at n. 3 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 10, 2010) (Watkins, J.) (citing

Collier). “When the court decides under Rule 19(a) that a person should be joined

the court should direct the plaintiff to amend his complaint to add the person. Failure

to comply with such an order may result in dismissal of the plaintiff's action under

Rule 41(b)for failure of a party to comply with an order of court.” English v.

Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 465 F.2d 43, 47-48 (5th Cir. 1972).2

“‘If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court

must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed

among the existing parties or should be dismissed.’” Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C.

por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330, 1344 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Rule 19(b)); see also,

Davis v. Raymond, 12-22578-CIV, 2013 WL 2047424 at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2013)

(“[D]ismissal for failure to join an indispensable party is only appropriate where the

nonparty cannot be made a party.”). A district court’s dismissal isreviewed for abuse

of discretion on appeal. Laker Airways, Inc. v. British Airways, PLC, 182 F.3d 843,

 See Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (holding 2

that decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981, are binding in the Eleventh Circuit).

5

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 5 of 16
847 (11th Cir. 1999). 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On June 20, 2012, Carlos Slaght and Joan Slaght filed a lawsuit in the Circuit

Court of Calhoun County, Alabama, against “Danny Joe Poore d/b/a Economy

Termite and Pest Control.” (Doc. 1-1 at 8 (complaint in Slaght, et al. v. Danny Joe

Poore d/b/a Economy Termite and Pest Control, CV-2012-900319.00). In that

lawsuit, the Slaghts allege that they had a “written termite retreatment and damage

repair contract, bond, and guarantee” with the defendant (doc. 1-1 at 13), and that

they paid the amounts due on the agreement (doc. 1-1 at 13). The Slaghts allege that

the termite treatment and protection services EPC provided at the Slaght

house beginning in 1991 were faulty, and that EPC either did not

disclose or remedy a termite infestation each subsequent year itserviced

the Slaghts’ house until 2012. Due to the alleged poor treatment/service,

the Slaghts’ house became infested with termites, causing them to

sustain property damage and mental anguish.

(Doc. 1 at 4).

On June 19, 2013, Andrew Hunter filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of

Calhoun County, Alabama, against “Danny Joe Poore d/b/a Economy Termite and

Pest Control.” (Doc. 1-1 at 29 (complaint in Hunter v. Danny Joe Poore d/b/a

Economy Termite and Pest Control, 11-CV-2013-900368.00). In that lawsuit, Hunter

alleges a that he had an “annually renewable termite treatment warranty and service

6

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 6 of 16
agreement” with the defendant (doc. 1-1 at 33) and that he paid the amounts due on

the agreement (doc. 1-1 at 33). Hunter alleges 

that the termite treatment and protection services EPC provided at his

house in 2010 were faulty, and that EPC either did not disclose or

remedy a termite infestation each subsequent year it serviced Hunter’s

house until 2012. Due to the poor treatment/service, Hunter claims his

house became infested with termites, causing him to sustain significant

property damage and mental anguish.

(Doc. 1 at 6). 

According to the complaint in the instant case, “Economy Pest Control is the

named insured on an insurance policy issued by SPARTA, which is defending the

underlying lawsuits under a strict reservation of rights.” (Doc. 1 at 3). The complaint

states that “Kathleen Poore” was listed as an “owner” of EPC on the original

application of insurance. (Doc. 1 at 8). 

The application referenced is attached to the complaint as “Exhibit E.” (Doc.

1-1). It lists “Economy Pest Control” asthe “First Named Insured.” (Doc. 1-1 at 50). 

It is undated, except that the following appears, in handwriting, in a blank next to the

words “Requested Policy Period:” “Immediate 11/15/08-09.” (Doc. 1-1 at 50). One

line of this document contains four boxes. (Doc. 1-1 at 50). The first is followed by

the word “Individual” and has a handwritten “x” in it. (Doc. 1-1 at 50). The

remaining three boxes have written next to them the words “Partnership,”

7

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 7 of 16
“Corporation,” and “Other,” respectively. (Doc. 1-1 at 50). None of those boxes are

marked. (Doc. 1-1 at 50). The document notes that Kathleen Poore, who is listed as

an “officer/owner,” owns “100%” of the insured. (Doc. 1-1 at 50). The document is

signed only by Danny Poore. (Doc. 1-1 at 52). 

Danny and Kathleen Poore

also submitted signed, handwritten letters as part of the application

process. The first stated:

Effective 11-5-08, Danny J. Poore and Kathleen Poore

DBA Economy Pest Control, 604 Ledford St., Weaver, AL

36227, (256) 820-7172, no longer will engage in structural

pest control ‘termite treatments.’ We do not perform wood

infestation inspection reports. We only engage in general

household pest control.

The second stated, “We do not perform WRI's for real estate company's

[sic]. The only WRI’s that we do perform is [sic] on homes that have a

current termite contract with our company. Please call if you have any

questions. Danny.”

(Doc. 1 at 8-9) (quoting doc. 1-1 at 53-54). 

A later application for renewal of the insurance, dated November 2009, lists

Danny Poore as the 100% owner of Economy Pest Control. (Doc. 19-1 at 2). 

Attached to the instant motion as Exhibit A are four documents which, on their

face, each purport to be a “Certification of Insurance Pertaining to Licensed

Structural Pest Control Business.” (Doc. 17-1 at 2-5). Each document lists EPC as

8

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 8 of 16
the “Insured” and contains the following language:

A. Rule 80-10-9-.28, Alabama Administrative Code requires that

before a permit is issued or reissued to engage in Control of

Wood Destroying Organisms; Industrial, Institutional, and

Household Pest Control; or Fumigation Pest Control applicant

shall provide proof of insurance coverage of not less than

$150,000.00 to insure against liability for damage to persons or

property occurring as a result of applicant’s work or service to

premises or any other property under applicant’s care, custody or

control.

B. Rule 80-10-9-.28, Alabama Administrative Code requires that

applicants permitted to engage in Control of Wood Destroying

Organisms and that perform Wood Destroying Organisms

Inspections for Real Estate Transaction Inspections shall also

have errors and omissions coverage in an amount not less than

$100,000.00. Does the insured have errors and omissions

coverage as required?

Yes G No G

(Doc. 17-1 at 2, 3, 4, 5) (original emphasis omitted). Below this section, the

following language appears on each document: “Certification is hereby made that

insurance coverage as required by Rule 80-10-9-.28, Alabama Administrative Code

has been established by the above named insured through liability insurance that

meets or exceeds the minimum amounts specified above.” (Doc. 17-1 at 2, 3, 4, 5). 

Below that line are blanks for the name and address of a “Carrier or Agent” and for

an individual making the certification. (Doc. 17-1 at 2, 3, 4, 5). 

The certifications appear to be for the years 2008-2009 (doc. 17-1 at 5), 2009-

9

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 9 of 16
2010 (doc. 17-1 at 4), 2010-2011 (doc. 17-1 at 3), and 2011-2012 (doc. 17-1 at 2). 

The “Yes” box is checked on all certifications except 2011-2012. (Doc. 17-1 at 2, 3,

4, 5). The Carrier or Agent listed on each certification is “Crutchfield & Graves

Insurance Agency, LLC.” (Doc. 17-1 at 2, 3, 4, 5). For all years except 2008-2009,

each certification states that it was performed on behalf of the agency “by” Jim

Crutchield. (Doc. 17-1 at 2, 3, 4). For 2008-2009, the certification was by Angie

Barber. (Doc. 17-1 at 5). 

The policy itself is attached to the complaint and states that the named insured

is “Economy Pest Control.” (Doc. 1-2 at 3). 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Kathleen Poore

The movants first argue that Kathleen Poore “must be joined” as a “required

party” under Rule 19. The rule instructs that Kathleen Poore is “required” only if:

(A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief

among existing parties; or 

(B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and

is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may: 

(I) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s

ability to protect the interest; or 

(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of

incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent

10

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 10 of 16
obligations because of the interest.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(A)-(B). The entirety of the movants’ argument on this point

is as follows:

1. Plaintiff admits in paragraph 15 and Exhibit E to the Complaint

that Kathleen Poore, Defendant Danny Poore’s wife, is an owner of

“Economy Pest Control” (herein “Economy”) which is listed as a

proprietorship. DOC 1. In fact, Exhibit E to the Complaint lists Kathleen

Poore as the “100%” owner of Economy. Exhibit E also lists the

“insured” as Economy Pest Control. Consequently, according to

Plaintiff’s evidence, “Economy” is a nonexistent legal entity and the

only legal entity that applied for and could have been issued the policies

at issue was Danny Poore’s wife, Kathleen. Hence, as the owner of the

policy according to Plaintiff’s complaint, Kathleen Poore’s rights will

be litigated in this case, and Danny Poore is more correctly described as

an “additional named or unnamed insured” in insurance parlance.

2. Mrs. Poore issubject to service of process and her joinder will not

deprive this Court of Jurisdiction. In her absence, the Court cannot

accord any relief between the parties, much less complete relief and her

absence may leave the Pooressubject to inconsistent obligations and the

Defendants (including the Slaghts) open to duplicitous litigation.

(Doc. 17 at 1). 

The conclusory statement that “[i]n her absence, the Court cannot accord any

relief between the parties, much less complete relief,” does not carry the movant’s

burden to show how complete relief could not be accorded in this case. The plaintiff

in the instant case seeks a judgment that it is not required to indemnify or defend “any

defendant in the underlying suit[s].” (Doc. 1 at 18) (emphasis added). The only

11

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 11 of 16
defendant in the underlying cases is Danny Poore. The fact that the complaints name

him as “Danny Joe Poore d/b/a Economy Termite and Pest Control” does not change

the fact that the actions are brought against him, individually. (Doc. 1-1 at 8, 29)

(emphasis added). The complaints describe only conduct by Danny Poore. Kathleen

Poore is not specifically named in the underlying suits in any capacity. There is no

evidence that she may be liable, in whole or in part, directly or through respondeat

superior, for any judgment rendered in those cases. There does not appear to be any

reason why the court cannot declare the extent of coverage in this case without her

becoming a party.

Nor is there evidence that Kathleen Poore “claims an interest relating to the

subject of this action.” The complaint in this case notes that Kathleen Poore “was

listed as an owner on the original application.” (Doc. 1 at 8). That application,

attached to the complaint, notes that Kathleen Poore is the “100%” owner of the

named insured on the policy. (Doc. 1-1 at 50). The movants seem to argue that she

is the real named insured because of this language. They argue that her “rights will

be litigated in this case,” without explaining what those rights are, or how they will

be affected. Further, the renewal application, filed later, shows that Danny Poore

owns the company 100%. That is the latest application in the record. Accordingly,

even if the court were to assume that the “100% owner of the company” is

12

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 12 of 16
conclusively established by the representations made in the applications, the most

recent application showsthat Kathleen Poore currently has no interest in the company

at all. The movants have failed to show how, under these circumstances, Kathleen

Poore would be affected in any way by a judgment in this case. 

Further, even if Kathleen Poore is the 100% owner of the company, the

movants have provided no authority for the proposition that a named insured must

always be considered a necessary party, especially where, as here, she is unnamed in

the underlying suits. Indeed, “[c]ontrary to [any] blanket assertion that all insured are

always indispensable parties[,] . . . courts have held in a variety of circumstances that

not all insureds must be joined in a declaratory judgment action.” Great W. Cas. Co.

v. Firstfleet, Inc., CA 2:12-00623-KD-N, 2013 WL 4165715 (S.D. Ala. July 18,

2013) report and recommendation adopted as modified, CIV.A. 12-00623-KD-N,

2013 WL 4165719 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 15, 2013) (citing In re Chinese Mfd. Drywall

Prods. Liab. Litig., 273 F.R.D. 380, 390–91 (E.D.La.2011)); see also, Royal Ins. Co.

of Am. v. Caleb V. Smith &Son, Inc., 3:90CV651(WWE), 1997 WL 835058 at *3 (D.

Conn. June 16, 1997) (citing cases). 

Also, since her husband has been sued here, Kathleen Poore is surely aware of

this action, but has not sought to intervene. It has been noted that

[i]f a person knows of the action but chooses not to participate, the court

13

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 13 of 16
should be reluctant to find that person to be a required party under Rule

19 based on the possible harm to its interests.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 19 Westlaw

Commentary; see also Powers v. City of Seattle, 242 F.R.D. 566, 568

(W.D.Wash.2007) (“[T]he Court will not second-guess the [absent

party's] assessment of its own interests.”); Rotec Industries, Inc. v.

Aecon Group, Inc., 436 F.Supp.2d 931, 937 (N.D.Ill.2006) (“When the

outsider is aware of the action and does not claim such an interest,

courts typically will not second-guess the decision.”); Blumberg v.

Gates, 204 F.R.D. 453, 455 (C.D.Cal.2001) (“[T]he Court believes that

it should, consistent with Rule 19, respect the decision of the absent

parties, who have never claimed an interest in the present litigation, to

remain on the sidelines since doing so will not prejudice the City.”). 

Innotex Precision Ltd. v. Horei Image Products, Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1362

(N.D. Ga. 2009). Surely Kathleen Poore, moreso than the movants or this court, is

the better judge of whether her rights might be impaired by this action. Absent some

explanation asto why she has not sought to intervene, the court will not second guess

her failure to do so by ordering her to be made a party.

B. Other Parties

The movants also write:

3. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to join the following parties who

presence isindispensable to decisions on the defenses in this case

and important to all Defendants: Crutchfield and Graves

Insurance Agency LLC (herein “C&G¡ ̈); Jim Crutchfield, an

Alabama citizen and insurance broker; Angie Barber, a citizen of

an unknown state and insurance broker and agent of C&G as well

as an agent and broker of Capital Risk Underwriters and National

Purchasing Group for Pest Control Operators, Inc. (herein

“Capital Risk” and “NPGPCO”; Capital Risk and NPGPCO, are

believed to be Florida entities and agents of Plaintiff; and Michael

14

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 14 of 16
Howard Schmidt, believed to be a Florida citizen and licensed

broker as well as agent for Plaintiff as well as a licensed Alabama

insurance broker and principal in Capital Risk and NPGPCO.

4. Parties identified in the immediately preceding paragraph, on

information and belief, sold non-compliant insurance to

Defendant Poore and Kathleen Poore, or were themselves

underwriters of some or all of the risk associated with any policy

at issue between the parties, as agents of Plaintiff and thereafter

either amended said policies or, alternatively, falsely certified to

the Alabama Department of Agriculture that such insurance

complied with the financial responsibility provisions of Alabama

Statutory law on behalf of and as agents for both Plaintiff and

Defendant Poore (or as agents of plaintiff). EXHIBIT A hereto.

(Doc. 17 at 2-3). This argument is pure speculation that there might be some cause

of action against these entities and individuals. But “[h]ypothetical proceedings ...

are not sufficient to establish a potential for multiple or otherwise inconsistent

liabilities ....” Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Aecon Grp. ., Inc., 436 F.Supp.2d 931, 938

(N.D.Ill.2006). Even if there is some claim against these entities and individuals, or

some of them, the movants fail to show why they must be added to this case.

3

The movants also state: 3

if joinder is feasible and diversity is not destroyed, the pro se Defendants Danny

and Kathleen Poore who are lay persons without resources to hire legal counsel,

should be equitably deemed to have asserted causes of action against the entities

identified in paragraph three, above, consistent with the affirmative defenses

raised by the Slaghts, and counterclaims and cross-claims for promissory fraud,

misrepresentation and deceit and concealment connected with issuing

Certifications of Insurance coverage when none was actually provided as

acknowledged in the 2011 Certification as to Errors and Omissions coverage or

alternatively for negligent failure to procure insurance coverage. EXHIBIT A

hereto.

15

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 15 of 16
IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of December, 2013.

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

(Doc. 17 at 3). As the motion to add these parties will be denied, this request is also DENIED as

moot. Further, the movants provide no legal authority or evidentiary basis for why such relief

would be appropriate. Further, they do not explain why they, as opposed to Danny and Kathleen

Poore themselves, have standing to request such relief. The request is DENIED for these

reasons as well.

16

Case 1:13-cv-01692-VEH Document 22 Filed 12/03/13 Page 16 of 16