Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC v. Williams, Jr.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-08920
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Marsh & McLennan v. Williams, Judge Cronan ordered supplemental briefs on standing and nominal damages while considering Defendants’ dismissal motion.
Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC and the defendants in the case; the defendants’ dismissal motion remained unresolved by this order.
What happened
Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC sued Donald Drennan Williams, Jr. and other defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the company lacked standing to bring its claims.
The defendants also argued that the company could not show a breach of contract. The court asked the parties to address whether a contract breach alone can establish the required harm, whether the court could award nominal damages even though the complaint seeks actual damages, and whether the breach arguments concern standing or the underlying merits.
The court ordered both sides to file simultaneous supplemental letters by January 17, 2025. Judge John P. Cronan did not resolve the dismissal motion in this order.
The detailed version
- Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC v. Williams, Jr. · No. 1:22-cv-08920
- John Cronan
- Dec. 30, 2024
Background
Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC (referred to as “MMA”) sued Donald Drennan Williams, Jr. and other defendants. On March 18, 2024, the defendants moved, among other things, to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that MMA lacked standing to pursue its claims. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal injury for a federal court to hear the dispute.
In their reply, the defendants argued that MMA’s assertion of breach of contract, without a concrete showing of harm, did not satisfy the constitutional injury-in-fact requirement. They also argued that MMA could not establish even a “pure breach” of contract for several reasons.
Issues the Court Asked the Parties to Address
The court ordered the parties to address three questions in supplemental letter briefs:
- Whether the court could award nominal damages to MMA even though the complaint seeks actual damages, not nominal damages.
- Whether breaching a contract to which MMA is a party, standing alone, is an injury sufficient to establish standing.
- Whether the defendants’ arguments that MMA cannot prove a breach of contract concern standing—the court’s power to hear the dispute—or instead concern the merits, meaning whether MMA should ultimately prevail on its claims.
Order and Effect
The court ordered each side to file a simultaneous supplemental letter brief of no more than 3,500 words by January 17, 2025. This order did not grant or deny the defendants’ dismissal motion and did not decide whether MMA had standing, whether MMA could recover nominal damages, or whether MMA could prove a breach of contract.
The case is classified as a procedural order because the court directed additional briefing on a challenge to the court’s authority to hear the claims and did not decide the underlying contract dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.