Reardon v. First National Insurance Company of America
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-09542
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Reardon v. First National Insurance, Judge Briccetti ordered plaintiff to choose whether to amend her complaint before defendants’ dismissal motion proceeds.
Roberta Reardon, Commissioner of Labor of the State of New York, and the four defendant insurance companies were affected by the deadlines and choices in the court’s order.
What happened
In Reardon v. First National Insurance Company of America, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on November 22, 2019. The order did not decide whether that motion should be granted or denied.
The court required Roberta Reardon, Commissioner of Labor of the State of New York, to notify the court by December 2 whether she would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint. If she chose to amend, she had 14 days after notifying the court to file the amended complaint.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered that, after an amended complaint was filed, the defendants would have 21 days to answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that they would rely on their original dismissal motion. If Reardon did not amend, the original motion would proceed under the ordinary schedule.
The detailed version
- Reardon v. First National Insurance Company of America · No. 7:19-cv-09542
- Vincent Briccetti
- Nov. 25, 2019
Background
Roberta Reardon, Commissioner of Labor of the State of New York, sued First National Insurance Company of America, Safeco Insurance Company of America, Safeco National Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. On November 22, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The opinion does not describe the claims or the grounds for dismissal.
Order
The court ordered Reardon to send a letter by December 2, 2019, stating whether she intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion to dismiss or would rely on the existing complaint.
If Reardon chose not to amend, the defendants’ motion would proceed under the regular schedule. The court stated that it was unlikely to give Reardon another opportunity to amend based on deficiencies revealed by the fully briefed motion. The order cited decisions discussing circumstances in which leave to amend may properly be denied, including undue delay, bad faith, a dilatory motive, or futility.
If Reardon chose to amend, she had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amended complaint was filed, the defendants could answer it, file a new motion to dismiss it, or notify the court that they would rely on their original motion to dismiss.
Disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti issued a case-management order directing the plaintiff to choose between amending the complaint and proceeding on the existing complaint. The order did not grant or deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss and did not resolve the merits of the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.