Illinois Union Insurance Company v. Singer
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-01170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Illinois Union v. Singer, Judge Cronan required more briefing on Illinois Union’s partial-summary-judgment motion, which defendants had not opposed by the deadline, and warned them.
Illinois Union Insurance Company and the defendants, including Baruch Singer, are affected by the court’s supplemental-briefing and response deadlines.
What happened
In Illinois Union Insurance Company v. Singer, Illinois Union Insurance Company asked for partial summary judgment, a decision on some claims without a trial. The defendants had not opposed the motion by the deadline.
The court ordered Illinois Union to provide a supplemental letter brief of no more than five pages. It must address whether its common-law indemnification and subrogation claims duplicate its contractual indemnification claim and whether it still wants to pursue those claims if it wins on the contractual claim. It must also address whether it provided enough evidence to support its request for $391,490.51 in expenses.
The defendants were ordered to tell the court whether they intend to oppose the motion and whether there was a good reason for missing the earlier deadline. Judge Cronan warned that if they do not file an opposition, the court will treat the motion as unopposed and decide whether Illinois Union is entitled to summary judgment without opposing papers. The order did not decide the motion.
The detailed version
- Illinois Union Insurance Company v. Singer · No. 1:21-cv-01170
- John Cronan
- May 15, 2025
Background
The court had set a briefing schedule for Plaintiff Illinois Union Insurance Company’s motion for partial summary judgment. Illinois Union filed the motion on December 31, 2024. The defendants had not filed an opposition by the deadline.
Required Supplemental Briefing
The court ordered Illinois Union to submit, by May 30, 2025, a supplemental letter brief of no more than five pages addressing two issues:
1. Whether its claims for common-law indemnification and subrogation—the Second and Third Causes of Action—are duplicative of its claim for contractual indemnification—the First Cause of Action. The court also directed Illinois Union to state whether it still wishes to pursue the common-law indemnification and subrogation claims if it prevails on the contractual indemnification claim. 2. Whether Illinois Union submitted enough evidence for the court to determine whether its request for $391,490.51 in expenses is reasonable. If not, Illinois Union must state whether it seeks an opportunity to submit additional supporting information.
Defendants’ Response
The defendants were ordered to file a letter by May 23, 2025, stating whether they intend to oppose Illinois Union’s summary-judgment motion and, if so, whether good cause exists to excuse their failure to meet the earlier deadline. The court warned that failure to file an opposition would result in treating the motion as unopposed. The court would then determine whether Illinois Union is entitled to summary judgment without the benefit of opposing papers.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan issued a briefing order. The opinion did not grant or deny Illinois Union’s partial-summary-judgment motion and did not decide the underlying indemnification, subrogation, or expense issues.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.