Adair v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

W.D. Oklahoma

Adair v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

DecidedDecember 29, 2023

Docket5:23-cv-01056

StatusUnknown

This text of Adair v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (Adair v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adair v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, (W.D. Okla. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JOHN ADAIR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-23-01056-JD ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and TIM CUSTER ) INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay or Extend Plaintiff’s Deadline to Respond to Defendant Tim Custer Insurance Agency, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) [Doc. No. 18]. Defendants have responded in opposition [Doc. No. 20]. The Tenth Circuit regularly refers to the determination of subject matter jurisdiction as the “threshold” question in any case. See Kerr v. Polis, 20 F.4th 686, 692 (10th Cir. 2021) (“[W]e address the threshold question of subject-matter jurisdiction.”); Gray v. Feed the Children, Inc., 2010 WL 356398, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 22, 2010) (“Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold question that must be resolved before addressing the merits of the case.”); Cheyenne-Arapaho Gaming Comm’n v. Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, 214 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1162 (N.D. Okla. 2002) (“The threshold question the Court must first address is whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the case.”). Given the primacy of subject matter jurisdiction, “[c]ustomarily, a federal court first resolves doubts about its jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 578 (1999). Understandably then, courts regularly consider pending remand disputes before wading further into a case. See In re C& M Props., L.L.C., 563 F.3d 1156, 1162 (10th Cir. 2009) (“[A] remand order takes precedence, and the district court should not take action on pending motions before or after remand.’’) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant Tim Custer Insurance Agency’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 10] is STAYED until the Court rules on Plaintiff’s motion to remand. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th of December 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JOHN ADAIR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-23-01056-JD ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and TIM CUSTER ) INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay or Extend Plaintiff’s Deadline to Respond to Defendant Tim Custer Insurance Agency, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) [Doc. No. 18]. Defendants have responded in opposition [Doc. No. 20]. The Tenth Circuit regularly refers to the determination of subject matter jurisdiction as the “threshold” question in any case. See Kerr v. Polis, 20 F.4th 686, 692 (10th Cir. 2021) (“[W]e address the threshold question of subject-matter jurisdiction.”); Gray v. Feed the Children, Inc., 2010 WL 356398, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 22, 2010) (“Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold question that must be resolved before addressing the merits of the case.”); Cheyenne-Arapaho Gaming Comm’n v. Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, 214 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1162 (N.D. Okla. 2002) (“The threshold question the Court must first address is whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the case.”). Given the primacy of subject matter jurisdiction, “[c]ustomarily, a federal court first resolves doubts about its jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 578 (1999). Understandably then, courts regularly consider pending remand disputes before wading further into a case. See In re C& M Props., L.L.C., 563 F.3d 1156, 1162 (10th Cir. 2009) (“[A] remand order takes precedence, and the district court should not take action on pending motions before or after remand.’’) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant Tim Custer Insurance Agency’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 10] is STAYED until the Court rules on Plaintiff’s motion to remand. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th of December 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Adair v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adair-v-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-company-okwd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack