Amari J. Moody v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.
- Rearden
- 1:25-cv-08671
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Amari J. Moody v. Sedgwick, Judge Rearden denied Moody’s evidence-preservation restraining-order request without prejudice and ordered all parties to preserve relevant evidence.
Amari J. Moody’s request for an emergency evidence-preservation order was denied without prejudice. The preservation directive applies to all parties, including Moody and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.
What happened
Amari J. Moody sued Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal law governing employee benefit plans. Moody, who is representing himself, alleges that Sedgwick mishandled a benefits claim related to his medical leave and closed it as an “Unapproved Absence.”
Moody asked the court for an emergency order requiring Sedgwick to preserve and produce the complete claim file, stop altering or deleting claim records, and certify compliance. Sedgwick was still in the process of being served when the court considered the request.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden denied the temporary restraining-order application without prejudice because the record did not establish a sufficient likelihood that Moody would succeed, especially before the opposing side had participated. The court separately ordered all parties to preserve evidence that might relate to any claim or defense.
The detailed version
- Amari J. Moody v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-08671
- Rearden
- Nov. 5, 2025
Background
Amari J. Moody brought an action against Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Moody is proceeding without a lawyer. The opinion states that Moody was a former Starbucks employee and a participant in Starbucks employee welfare benefit plans. It describes Sedgwick as a plan administrator and fiduciary with authority to determine eligibility for benefits, decide claims, and handle appeals for Starbucks.
Moody took medical leave on April 16, 2025, although an employer form listed April 21, 2025, creating what Moody described as a five-day discrepancy. On June 24, 2025, Sedgwick issued an “Unapproved Absence” determination and closed the claim without stating specific reasons or appeal rights. Moody later contacted the U.S. Department of Labor. Moody alleges that Sedgwick withheld the complete claim file, internal communications, and medical-review notes, and alleges that Sedgwick and Starbucks’s legal representatives might alter or delete internal records and communications.
Motion and requested relief
Moody moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO), an emergency court order, and a preliminary injunction. The requested relief would have required Sedgwick to produce the complete administrative claim file within 14 days, refrain from deleting, modifying, or altering data or records related to Moody’s claim, file a written compliance certification, and provide any further equitable relief the court considered appropriate.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that, for purposes of the motion, it assumed the facts in the complaint and motion were true. It also recognized that Moody’s self-represented filings should be read liberally, while explaining that self-represented status does not exempt a party from procedural and substantive legal rules.
The court declined to find that Moody had established a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to justify the extraordinary relief requested. It emphasized that the request was being considered without the benefit of the adversarial process because Sedgwick was still being served. The court therefore denied Moody’s application for a discovery-related TRO without prejudice.
The court separately explained that all parties must preserve evidence when they know, or should know, that it may be relevant to current or future litigation. It ordered all parties to preserve all evidence that might be relevant to any claim or defense. The court warned that failure to preserve documents could lead to sanctions, including unfavorable inferences or sanctions that could resolve the case.
Disposition
The court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order without prejudice. It did not state a separate disposition of the requested preliminary injunction. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion docket entry, and the action was referred to Magistrate Judge Figueredo for general pretrial management and dispositive motions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.