Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC v. Alliant Insurance Services
Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC v. Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., Andrew Oldenburg, Elizabeth McKinney, Kimberly Moore, and Danielle Black
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-06936
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marsh & McLennan Agency v. Alliant Insurance Services, Judge Abrams ordered briefing on whether to pause the case pending an Oregon court’s decision.
Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC and the five defendants are affected by the additional briefing schedule and postponed hearing; the order may also pause consideration of Marsh’s emergency-relief application while the Oregon court considers which action should proceed.
What happened
Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC sued Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., Andrew Oldenburg, Elizabeth McKinney, Kimberly Moore, and Danielle Black over restrictive covenants. Marsh later asked for an immediate order, a preliminary injunction, and expedited discovery.
The defendants argued that an earlier Oregon lawsuit involving Oldenburg and Marsh should take priority under the first-filed rule, which generally gives priority to the court where a similar case was filed first. Marsh acknowledged that this case was filed second but argued that special circumstances justified priority here.
The court did not decide whether the first-filed rule applies or whether to grant the requested emergency relief. Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered both sides to file letters addressing whether this case should be paused while the Oregon court decides which case should proceed, allowed responses, and postponed the hearing to September 19, 2025.
The detailed version
- Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC v. Alliant Insurance Services · No. 1:25-cv-06936
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 15, 2025
Background
Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC began this action on August 21, 2025, against Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., Andrew Oldenburg, Elizabeth McKinney, Kimberly Moore, and Danielle Black. On August 29, 2025, Marsh filed an application for an order requiring the defendants to show cause why the court should issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and expedited discovery. The court allowed additional briefing and set a hearing.
Oldenburg had previously filed an action in Oregon against Marsh in July 2025 seeking to invalidate the restrictive covenants at issue. The defendants argued that the first-filed rule applied. That rule generally gives priority to the court where a substantially similar lawsuit was filed first, unless the second court has a sufficient reason to proceed instead.
Court’s Analysis
Marsh did not dispute that the two cases concerned substantially the same subject matter, principally the enforceability of certain restrictive covenants. Marsh also acknowledged that this action was filed second but argued that special circumstances supported giving this court priority.
The court identified a threshold question: which court should decide where the dispute should proceed. The Oregon action included a pending motion to dismiss or transfer venue. Because the two courts could potentially issue conflicting rulings, the court explained that courts in this district generally allow the court handling the first-filed action to determine which forum should hear the dispute.
Order
The court ordered each party to file, by September 17, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., a letter presenting arguments and supporting citations on whether this action should be stayed—that is, temporarily paused—while the Oregon court determines which action should proceed. Responses were permitted by September 18, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Judge Ronnie Abrams adjourned the September 17 hearing to September 19, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. The order did not decide the stay question, the first-filed-rule question, or Marsh’s application for emergency relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.