Great Lakes Insurance SE, et al. v. La Marche Manufacturing Co., et al.

E.D. Louisiana

Great Lakes Insurance SE, et al. v. La Marche Manufacturing Co., et al.

DecidedMarch 9, 2026

Docket2:24-cv-01729

StatusUnknown

This text of Great Lakes Insurance SE, et al. v. La Marche Manufacturing Co., et al. (Great Lakes Insurance SE, et al. v. La Marche Manufacturing Co., et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Great Lakes Insurance SE, et al. v. La Marche Manufacturing Co., et al., (E.D. La. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-1729

LA MARCHE MANUFACTURING SECTION: D (1) CO., ET AL.

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Southern Power Systems, Inc. (“Southern Power”).1 Co-Defendant La Marche Manufacturing Co. (“La Marche”) opposes the Motion.2 Defendant Southern Power has filed a reply.3 None of the Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the motion. Southern Power filed the instant motion on August 19, 2025.4 La Marche responded in opposition on September 8, 2025, and Southern Power filed its reply on September 12, 2025.5 During a telephone status conference on September 19, 2025, the parties “advised that one important outstanding deposition would be conducted on October 1, 2025; parties disagreed as to whether this deposition was likely to impact Defendant Southern Power Systems, Inc.’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment.”6 As a result, the Court continued the submission date of the present motion to October 21, 2025, and permitted any party to supplement their briefing on the present motion, provided that leave of Court was sought.7 No party did so.

1 R. Doc. 43. 2 R. Doc. 44. 3 R. Doc. 45. 4 R. Doc. 43. 5 R. Docs. 44, 45. 6 R. Doc. 51. 7 Id. In the intervening period, Plaintiffs Great Lakes Insurance SE; Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. UK Branch individually and as assignee of Liberty Specialty Markets Bermuda Limited and Everen Specialty Ltd.; HDI Global Specialty SE – UK;

IMIU International Mining Industry Underwriters; PartnerRe Ireland Insurance dac; Convex Insurance UK Limited; QBE UK Limited; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London Subscribing to Unique Market Reference Nos.: B0509BOWPI2350200, B0509BOWPI2350292, B0509BOWPI2350293, B0509BOWPI2350295, B0509BOWPI2350297, B0509BOWPI2350298, B0509BOWPI2350299, B0509BOWPI2350302, B0509BOWPI2350309,

B0509BOWPI2350310, B0509BOWPI2350311, B0509BOWPI2350313, B0509BOWPI2350328, B0509BOWPI2350330; and Certain Underwriters Subscribing to the Risk as subrogees of Atlantic Alumina Company LLC and related companies (“Plaintiffs”) moved for leave to file a first amended complaint.8 In their Motion for Leave to file a First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs advised that “Counsel for Southern Power originally indicated via email that they will oppose [the motion for leave to file a first amended complaint] but

subsequently verbally indicated they will consent.”9 The Motion for Leave to File was granted on October 10, 2025,10 and the Amended Complaint was filed into the record on the same day.11

8 R. Doc. 46. 9 Id. at ¶ 8. 10 R. Doc. 53. 11 R. Doc. 54. “An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it of no legal effect unless the amended complaint specifically refers to and adopts or incorporates by reference the earlier pleading.” Once an amended complaint is filed, all pending motions, including motions for summary judgment, are rendered moot. □□ Southern Power’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment! was filed on August 19, 2025, before Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint,!5 and that motion addresses the original state court petition. 1° Therefore, the Court finds that Southern Power’s Motion for Summary Judgment has been rendered moot by the filing of the First Amended Complaint and denies the Motion as such. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Southern Power Systems, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment!’ is DENIED as moot. New Orleans, Louisiana, March 9, 2026. Voth WENDY B. VITTER United States District Judge

12 King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994). 13 Griffin v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 697 F. App'x 7938, 797 (5th Cir. 2017), as revised (June 8, 2017) (“Once filed, that amended complaint rendered all earlier motions...moot.”). 14R, Doce. 48. 15 R. Docs. 53, 54. 16 R, Doe. 3-3. 17R, Doe. 48.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-1729

LA MARCHE MANUFACTURING SECTION: D (1) CO., ET AL.

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Southern Power Systems, Inc. (“Southern Power”).1 Co-Defendant La Marche Manufacturing Co. (“La Marche”) opposes the Motion.2 Defendant Southern Power has filed a reply.3 None of the Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the motion. Southern Power filed the instant motion on August 19, 2025.4 La Marche responded in opposition on September 8, 2025, and Southern Power filed its reply on September 12, 2025.5 During a telephone status conference on September 19, 2025, the parties “advised that one important outstanding deposition would be conducted on October 1, 2025; parties disagreed as to whether this deposition was likely to impact Defendant Southern Power Systems, Inc.’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment.”6 As a result, the Court continued the submission date of the present motion to October 21, 2025, and permitted any party to supplement their briefing on the present motion, provided that leave of Court was sought.7 No party did so.

1 R. Doc. 43. 2 R. Doc. 44. 3 R. Doc. 45. 4 R. Doc. 43. 5 R. Docs. 44, 45. 6 R. Doc. 51. 7 Id. In the intervening period, Plaintiffs Great Lakes Insurance SE; Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. UK Branch individually and as assignee of Liberty Specialty Markets Bermuda Limited and Everen Specialty Ltd.; HDI Global Specialty SE – UK;

IMIU International Mining Industry Underwriters; PartnerRe Ireland Insurance dac; Convex Insurance UK Limited; QBE UK Limited; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London Subscribing to Unique Market Reference Nos.: B0509BOWPI2350200, B0509BOWPI2350292, B0509BOWPI2350293, B0509BOWPI2350295, B0509BOWPI2350297, B0509BOWPI2350298, B0509BOWPI2350299, B0509BOWPI2350302, B0509BOWPI2350309,

B0509BOWPI2350310, B0509BOWPI2350311, B0509BOWPI2350313, B0509BOWPI2350328, B0509BOWPI2350330; and Certain Underwriters Subscribing to the Risk as subrogees of Atlantic Alumina Company LLC and related companies (“Plaintiffs”) moved for leave to file a first amended complaint.8 In their Motion for Leave to file a First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs advised that “Counsel for Southern Power originally indicated via email that they will oppose [the motion for leave to file a first amended complaint] but

subsequently verbally indicated they will consent.”9 The Motion for Leave to File was granted on October 10, 2025,10 and the Amended Complaint was filed into the record on the same day.11

8 R. Doc. 46. 9 Id. at ¶ 8. 10 R. Doc. 53. 11 R. Doc. 54. “An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it of no legal effect unless the amended complaint specifically refers to and adopts or incorporates by reference the earlier pleading.” Once an amended complaint is filed, all pending motions, including motions for summary judgment, are rendered moot. □□ Southern Power’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment! was filed on August 19, 2025, before Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint,!5 and that motion addresses the original state court petition. 1° Therefore, the Court finds that Southern Power’s Motion for Summary Judgment has been rendered moot by the filing of the First Amended Complaint and denies the Motion as such. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Southern Power Systems, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment!’ is DENIED as moot. New Orleans, Louisiana, March 9, 2026. Voth WENDY B. VITTER United States District Judge

12 King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994). 13 Griffin v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 697 F. App'x 7938, 797 (5th Cir. 2017), as revised (June 8, 2017) (“Once filed, that amended complaint rendered all earlier motions...moot.”). 14R, Doce. 48. 15 R. Docs. 53, 54. 16 R, Doe. 3-3. 17R, Doe. 48.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Great Lakes Insurance SE, et al. v. La Marche Manufacturing Co., et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-lakes-insurance-se-et-al-v-la-marche-manufacturing-co-et-al-laed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack