Joachin v. AIG
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-04335
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Joachin v. AIG, Judge Vyskocil denied defendants’ dismissal motion without prejudice because Joachin may not have received notice.
Nadine Joachin and the four defendants. The ruling requires the defendants to properly serve a renewed dismissal motion and gives Joachin deadlines to appear, amend her complaint, or oppose that motion.
What happened
Nadine Joachin filed a pro se complaint accusing AIG, The United States Life Insurance Company, Scott Pierce, and Mikail Alsafa of violating the federal Sherman Antitrust Act. The defendants moved to dismiss, and the court had previously given Joachin permission to amend her complaint.
The court noted that Joachin’s complaint contained no factual allegations and was seriously deficient. But the docket did not show that she had received notice of the motion to dismiss or of the court’s order giving her a chance to amend or oppose the motion.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal. The court ordered the defendants to refile it with proof of service and gave Joachin deadlines to appear, amend her complaint, or oppose the renewed motion.
The detailed version
- Joachin v. AIG · No. 1:24-cv-04335
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 14, 2025
Background
Nadine Joachin filed a pro se complaint—meaning she was not represented by a lawyer—in New York state court. The complaint alleged, in conclusory terms, that the defendants were violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, a federal law governing certain anticompetitive conduct. The defendants removed the case to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction and then sought permission to file a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6).
The court granted the defendants permission to file the motion and gave Joachin an opportunity to amend her complaint before the motion was filed. The defendants filed the motion. But, after reviewing the docket, the court found that it did not appear Joachin had received notice of either the motion or the court’s order setting deadlines. Joachin had not filed a notice of appearance or consented to electronic service, and the defendants had not filed proof that they had served her with the motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the complaint contained no factual allegations and was grossly deficient. In the ordinary course, the court explained, it could dismiss such a complaint on its own. However, the court held that it could not rule on the merits without first ensuring that Joachin received notice and an opportunity to amend her pleading or oppose the motion to dismiss.
Ruling and Deadlines
The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal. The defendants were ordered to file a renewed motion by March 28, 2025, together with proof that they had served Joachin with the court’s order and the motion papers.
Joachin was ordered to appear in the case by April 14, 2025. If she wished to amend her complaint, she had to do so by May 5, 2025, which the court identified as her last opportunity to amend in response to the motion or the order. If she did not amend, she had to oppose the renewed motion by May 5, 2025. The order warned that failure to comply with court orders could lead to sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute or a default judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.