United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF LAW [ECF
Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge.
an insurance-coverage dispute regarding a policy that Acuity,
a Mutual Insurance Company, issued to Donald Humes. Acuity
moves for “an Order acknowledging that South Dakota law
will govern this action.” But this requires application of
Nevada’s conflict-of-law rules to the facts of this
case, which are disputed. Because the motion does not comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56-or any other rule-I
deny it without prejudice to the parties’ ability to
file a motion for partial summary judgment that complies with
Rule 56 by October 16, 2019.
courts sitting in diversity apply “state substantive
law to state law claims, including the forum state’s
choice of law rules.” “Nevada tends to follow the
Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws (1971) in determining
choice-of-law questions involving contracts . . . and
insurance contracts, in particular.” Under § 193
of the Restatement, “[t]he validity of a contract of
fire, surety or casualty insurance and the rights created
thereby are determined by the local law of the state [that]
the parties understood was to be the principal location of
the insured risk during the term of the policy, unless with
respect to the particular issue, some other state has a more
significant relationship . . . to the transaction and the
parties, in which event the local law of the other state will
that is the only “determination of law” I can
provide for now. To determine whether Nevada or South Dakota
law applies, I must apply § 193 to the facts in this
case. And Acuity makes clear in the first paragraph of its
reply that the facts necessary to make this determination are
Plaintiff completely misstates the history of the case,
including the chronology of the pre-litigation claim
handling. In doing so, he provides absolutely no evidentiary
support for his contentions.
too, provides almost no evidentiary support for the
contentions in its briefs. Except for an unauthenticated
insurance policy, neither party attaches affidavits,
deposition transcripts, or any other evidence that can be
presented in an admissible form at trial. I simply cannot
and will not make a conclusive determination of law based
solely on facts asserted by counsel in their briefs.
party cites a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure in its brief.
Although I might treat a “motion for determination of
law” accompanied by evidence as a motion for partial
summary judgment under Rule 56,  Acuity’s motion falls
far short of meeting the procedural requirements in that Rule
and Local Rule 56-1. Indeed, the motion emphasizes why these
rules, which require the parties to cite to the record and
set forth undisputed facts, exist. So I deny the motion
without prejudice to either party moving for partial summary
judgment on this issue under Rule 56.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Acuity’s
motion for determination of law [ECF No. 53] is
DENIED without prejudice to either party’s
ability to reurge it under Rule 56 with a fully developed
memorandum of points and authorities containing the
supporting law, evidence, and analysis.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order
[ECF No. 51] is AMENDED for the limited
purpose of allowing the parties to file motions for partial
summary judgment on the issue of what state’s law
applies in this case by October 16, 2019.
 ECF No. 53 at 4.