Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 10, 2025

Kaminskiy Design & Remodeling, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company

Judge
Jed Rakoff
Docket
1:25-cv-02275
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In KAMNSKIY Design & Remodeling v. Mt. Hawley Insurance, Judge Huie transferred the action to New York under the insurance contract.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, the two named insurance-company defendants, and the unidentified defendants in this action are affected by the transfer from the Southern District of California to the Southern District of New York.

What happened

KAMNSKIY Design & Remodeling, Inc. sued Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, RLI Insurance Company, and others identified as Does 1–50. The parties submitted a joint motion asking to transfer the case.

The court transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It relied on the insurance contract, a federal venue-transfer statute, and a Supreme Court decision about enforcing forum-selection clauses.

Judge Robert S. Huie ordered the transfer on March 10, 2025. The opinion does not decide the underlying insurance dispute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Kaminskiy Design & Remodeling, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company · No. 1:25-cv-02275
Judge
Jed Rakoff
Date
Mar. 10, 2025

Background

KAMNSKIY DESIGN & REMODELING, INC. brought this action against MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1–50. The parties submitted a stipulation and joint motion to transfer the action.

Ruling

The court ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It based the transfer on the forum-selection terms of the insurance contract, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013). The order did not resolve the underlying insurance dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.