Fan v. Anchor General Insurance Company
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-08911
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lingling Fan v. Anchor General Insurance, Judge Vyskocil denied Fan’s proposed emergency order and Anchor General’s sanctions request, reserving its dismissal motion.
Lingling Fan’s request for emergency injunctive relief was denied, and Anchor General Insurance Company’s request for $10,000 in sanctions was also denied. The pending motion to dismiss was not decided.
What happened
In Lingling Fan v. Anchor General Insurance Company, Lingling Fan, who is representing herself, asked the court to issue a proposed emergency order while the parties were briefing Anchor General’s planned motion to dismiss. Fan’s proposed order sought money and cited cases about emergency injunctions.
The court found no valid emergency relief was requested. Because Fan sought money, an injunction was unavailable, and she had not shown that the demanding requirements for preliminary emergency relief were met. Anchor General also asked for $10,000 in sanctions, but the court declined to impose sanctions at this time, while warning that future frivolous or unsupported filings could lead to sanctions.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Fan’s request for the proposed order to show cause and denied Anchor General’s request for monetary sanctions. The court said it would decide Anchor General’s pending dismissal motion after briefing was complete and denied Fan permission to appeal without paying fees because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Fan v. Anchor General Insurance Company · No. 1:24-cv-08911
- Vyskocil
- Sept. 4, 2025
Background
Lingling Fan filed this action on November 20, 2024, and is representing herself. Anchor General Insurance Company sought permission to file a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(c). After the court issued a scheduling order, Fan filed an amended complaint. While briefing on Anchor General’s pending motion was still ongoing, Fan filed a document titled “Proposed Order To Show Cause With Emergency Relief.” Anchor General opposed that request and asked the court to impose $10,000 in monetary sanctions under Rule 11.
Emergency-relief request
The court concluded that Fan’s proposed order did not request a legally recognizable emergency remedy. The court understood Fan to be seeking monetary relief and to be listing case law concerning preliminary and mandatory injunctions. Because money damages provide an adequate legal remedy, the court held that injunctive relief was unavailable. The court also found that Fan had not made the clear showing required for preliminary injunctive relief, an extraordinary remedy.
Sanctions request
The court explained that Rule 11 applies to people representing themselves, but imposing sanctions for a violation is discretionary. Exercising that discretion, the court declined to impose monetary sanctions on Fan at this time. In making that decision, the court noted that Fan was representing herself and had filed the lawsuit without prepaying court fees. The court warned that future letters or motions that are frivolous, vexatious, or completely unsupported by law or fact could result in sanctions.
Rulings
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Fan’s request to issue the proposed order to show cause at ECF No. 30. The court also denied Anchor General’s request to impose monetary sanctions on Fan. The court stated that it would rule on Anchor General’s pending motion after the parties completed briefing under the scheduling order; this opinion did not decide that motion.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Fan permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.