Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. v. National Union Fire Company of Pittsburgh
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-06957
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hertz Global Holdings v. National Union Fire Insurance, Judge Nathan directed plaintiff's response to a pending dismissal motion and postponed the initial conference.
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., the defendants, and the scheduling of the case’s initial pretrial conference.
What happened
In Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, et al., the defendants had filed a motion asking the court to dismiss Hertz’s claims. The court did not decide that motion in this order.
The court ordered Hertz to notify the court and defendants by November 22, 2019, whether it would file an amended pleading or rely on its existing pleading. The order warned that declining to amend could affect Hertz’s ability to later use amendment to fix defects identified in the motion. If Hertz amended, defendants could answer, file a new dismissal motion, or state that they relied on their original motion.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also postponed the initial pretrial conference scheduled for November 22 without setting a new date. The order stated that it did not change deadlines provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s local rules.
The detailed version
- Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. v. National Union Fire Company of Pittsburgh · No. 1:19-cv-06957
- Alison Nathan
- Nov. 20, 2019
Background
On November 11, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The order also referred to arguments in the defendants’ October 22 motion to dismiss as fully briefed. The court’s Individual Practices required Hertz to state whether it intended to amend its pleading or rely on the pleading challenged by the motion.
Order
The court required Hertz to notify the court and the defendants in writing by November 22, 2019, whether it would amend its pleading and, if so, when it would do so, or whether it would rely on its existing pleading. The court warned that choosing not to amend in response to a fully briefed argument could constitute a waiver of Hertz’s ability to use the amendment process later to cure defects identified in the defendants’ briefing. The order cited a Second Circuit decision discussing grounds that can justify denying leave to amend, including undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility.
If Hertz amended, the defendants could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they relied on the originally filed motion. The court stated that the order did not alter the deadlines for amending, answering, or moving under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s local rules.
Scheduling and disposition
The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for November 22, 2019, without setting a new date. This order managed the parties’ pleadings and schedule; it did not grant or deny the pending motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the dispute. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.