CX REINSURANCE CO. LTD. v. B&R MANAGEMENT, INC.

Civil No. JFM-17-363.

CX Reinsurance Co. Ltd., v. B&R Management, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgement
Nature of Suit: 110 Insurance
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

CX Reinsurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart M.G. Seraina , Kramon and Graham PA.

CX Reinsurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by James Henry Geiser, III , Kramon & Graham, P.A..

Jessica-Carl, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ira L. Oring , Fedder and Garten PA & Jay Abarbanel , Fedder and Garten PA.

Nancy L. Oring, Defendant, represented by Ira L. Oring , Fedder and Garten PA & Jay Abarbanel , Fedder and Garten PA.

Sean Nicholson, Defendant, represented by Paul Stephen Caiola , Gallagher Evelius and Jones LLP, Anatoly Smolkin , Gallagher Evelius & Jones LLP & David G. Sommer , Gallagher Evelius and Jones LLP.

Jack Novograd, Defendant, represented by Brian Marshall Spern , Law Office of Brian M Spern.

Dear Management & Construction Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Marshall Spern , Law Office of Brian M Spern.

Rhoda Rochkind, Defendant, represented by Brian Marshall Spern , Law Office of Brian M Spern.

Stanley Rochkind, Defendant, represented by Brian Marshall Spern , Law Office of Brian M Spern.

Charles Runkles, Defendant, represented by Brian Marshall Spern , Law Office of Brian M Spern.

N.B.S., Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Marshall Spern , Law Office of Brian M Spern.

George Kleb, Defendant, represented by Daniel R. Lanier , Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Unity Properties, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel R. Lanier , Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Renee King, Defendant, represented by David E. Fink , Law Offices of David E Fink.

Alvin Lapidus, Defendant, represented by Ira L. Oring , Fedder and Garten PA & Jay Abarbanel , Fedder and Garten PA.


MEMO TO COUNSEL RE:

J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge.

Dear Counsel:

I have reviewed the memoranda submitted in connection with defendants' motion to stay case. The motion (document 33) is granted. I am satisfied that continuity in the representation of defendants is the controlling factor and that CX Re should continue to provide defendants with representation in the underlying action. Of course, if the ruling in the Loyal appeal is affirmed, I will reconsider my ruling.

Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed as an order.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases