Kershaw v. New York Life Insurance Company
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-04159
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kershaw v. New York Life Insurance Company, Judge Broderick stayed discovery pending a decision on the motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff Clinton Kershaw and Defendant New York Life Insurance Company, including their counsel, are affected by the discovery stay and revised briefing schedule.
What happened
In Kershaw v. New York Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff Clinton Kershaw did not file his opposition to Defendant New York Life Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss by the court’s August 16 deadline. New York Life also said it had been unable to contact him, while Kershaw’s counsel was undergoing medical treatment.
New York Life asked the court to pause discovery. The court said the motion to dismiss raised a legitimate argument that the case may have been filed too late, and that pausing discovery was unlikely to harm either side because discovery had not begun and counsel was receiving medical treatment. The court did not decide the motion to dismiss.
Judge Broderick ordered discovery stayed while he considers the motion to dismiss and postponed the scheduled post-discovery conference without setting a new date. He ordered Kershaw to respond by August 23, 2024; otherwise, the court will consider the motion unopposed. If Kershaw responds, New York Life’s reply will be due September 6, 2024.
The detailed version
- Kershaw v. New York Life Insurance Company · No. 1:23-cv-04159
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 20, 2024
Background
On July 24, 2024, the court directed Plaintiff Clinton Kershaw to oppose Defendant New York Life Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss by August 16, 2024. The court also directed the parties to meet and confer about filing an amended case-management plan and scheduling order.
Kershaw did not meet the filing deadline. New York Life represented that it had been unable to contact him. The opinion states that Kershaw’s counsel had previously reported undergoing medical treatment, and that New York Life had indicated flexibility in light of that situation.
Discovery Stay
New York Life sought a stay of discovery, meaning a temporary pause in the exchange of information and evidence in the case. The court found a stay warranted. It noted that New York Life’s motion to dismiss raised a legitimate, non-frivolous argument that the action was time barred, while expressly stating that it was not expressing an opinion about the motion’s eventual outcome. The court also found that the risk of prejudice from pausing discovery was low because discovery had not yet begun and because of Kershaw’s counsel’s medical condition.
Motion to Dismiss and Deadlines
The court explained that a plaintiff’s failure to respond to a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) does not by itself permit dismissal. Instead, the court must independently review the complaint and applicable law to decide whether the motion should be granted or denied.
The court ordered that discovery is stayed pending its resolution of the motion to dismiss. It adjourned the post-discovery conference scheduled for February 21, 2025, without setting a new date. If Kershaw did not respond to the motion by August 23, 2024, the court would consider the motion unopposed and issue a decision in due course. If he filed an opposition by that date, New York Life’s reply would be due September 6, 2024.
Disposition
The court stayed discovery and adjourned the post-discovery conference. The opinion did not resolve New York Life’s motion to dismiss or decide whether the action was time barred.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.