Factory Mutual Insurance Company v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York
Factory Mutual Insurance Company v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-08133
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Factory Mutual v. Consolidated Edison—Judge Subramanian denied dismissal after clarification about nondiverse insureds and denied the discovery stay as moot.
Factory Mutual Insurance Company, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., and the nondiverse insureds referenced in the amended complaint.
What happened
In Factory Mutual Insurance Company v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Consolidated Edison challenged the court’s diversity jurisdiction, arguing that the parties did not have complete diversity. Factory Mutual amended its complaint to clarify that certain nondiverse insureds were not plaintiffs and that it was not seeking their deductibles.
The court denied the pending motion to dismiss, citing a Second Circuit decision. The court also denied the request to pause discovery as moot. The opinion does not state a ruling on the request to extend the deadline for impleaders.
Judge Arun Subramanian issued the ruling. Because the court resolved the jurisdictional motion without deciding the underlying dispute, this was a procedural order.
The detailed version
- Factory Mutual Insurance Company v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York · No. 1:24-cv-08133
- Subramanian
- Apr. 29, 2025
Background
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. moved to dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction. The motion raised an issue about whether the parties were completely diverse. In response, Factory Mutual Insurance Company amended its complaint to clarify that the nondiverse insureds were not plaintiffs and that no claim was being made for deductibles those insureds might be owed.
Consolidated Edison also requested a stay of discovery while the motion to dismiss was pending. Its counsel separately asked that the deadline for impleaders be extended if the motion to dismiss were denied. The available opinion text does not state a ruling on that extension request.
Ruling
The court denied the pending motion to dismiss, citing St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. University Builders, 409 F.3d 73, 80–81 (2d Cir. 2005). The court denied the request to stay discovery as moot. The Clerk of Court was directed to take the action identified in the order concerning docket entry 22.
Classification and basis
This is a procedural order because the court addressed a threshold subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge and did not decide the underlying dispute between the insurance company and the utility company.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.