P&E Solutions, LLC v. Crescent Power Systems, Inc.; Crescent Power Systems, Inc. v. North American Speciality Insurance Company

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Crescent Power Systems, Inc.’s motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the proposed arguments were not based on genuinely new material and that Crescent Power had failed to provide a compelling reason for a successive motion. The court struck the second and amended second summary judgment motions, as well as the response opposing them, from the record.

Holdings

1. Successive motions for summary judgment are generally disfavored, but the court may permit one when it is supported by genuinely new material; Crescent Power was not entitled to file a second motion because its arguments relied on facts already within its knowledge and it offered no compelling reason for failing to include them in its first motion.
2. Because Crescent Power filed the second and amended summary judgment motions without leave and the court denied permission to proceed, the motions and P&E's response to them were stricken from the record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Crescent Power should be granted leave to file a second motion for summary judgment raising arguments that could have been included in its first motion.
2. Whether Crescent Power's second and amended summary judgment motions should be stricken after being filed without leave.

Disposition

other