Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 25, 2025

Kershaw v. New York Life Insurance Company

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:23-cv-04159
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Kershaw v. New York Life, Judge Broderick stayed the action and gave Kershaw time to retain counsel or proceed without one.

Who this affects

Clinton Kershaw and New York Life Insurance Company; the case is paused while Kershaw obtains counsel or chooses to proceed without a lawyer.

What happened

Kershaw v. New York Life Insurance Company concerns a pending motion to dismiss that Kershaw did not oppose after his attorney became ill and later died.

The court said Kershaw’s failure to respond was caused by his attorney’s illness. It ordered New York Life to search for Kershaw’s contact information and try to deliver the order to him.

Judge Broderick stayed the case until June 23, 2025, so Kershaw could retain new counsel and oppose the motion or choose to proceed without a lawyer. The court did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Kershaw v. New York Life Insurance Company · No. 1:23-cv-04159
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Apr. 25, 2025

Background

The court stated that Plaintiff Clinton Kershaw’s attorney, William Wesley Frame, appeared to have died on August 16, 2024. The court also noted that all deadlines had previously been stayed and that Defendant New York Life Insurance Company’s unopposed motion to dismiss was pending.

The court attributed Kershaw’s failure to oppose the motion to dismiss to Frame’s illness. It therefore granted Kershaw leave to retain new counsel under a procedure set out in the order.

Court’s Orders

The court ordered New York Life to search its records for Kershaw’s contact information and attempt to serve him with the order by physical mail or email. New York Life had to file a letter by June 2, 2025, describing its efforts to serve him.

The court also stayed the action until June 23, 2025. During that period, Kershaw could either retain new counsel and oppose the pending motion to dismiss or choose to proceed without a lawyer. The court stated that, if it treated the motion as unopposed, it would independently review the complaint and applicable law before deciding whether to grant or deny the motion.

Disposition

Judge Broderick stayed the action and granted Kershaw an opportunity to obtain new counsel or proceed without one. The order did not grant or deny the pending motion to dismiss.

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.