Tooth v. Piserchia
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:17-cv-02124
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tooth v. Piserchia, Judge Briccetti set deadlines for new defense counsel and further proceedings on lifting the stay.
The order affected the Tooth plaintiffs, the defendants, and their attorneys by setting deadlines for changing defense counsel and addressing the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay.
What happened
In Tooth v. Piserchia, Ilona Tooth and Nathaniel Tooth sued Thomas A. Piserchia, his professional corporation, Bon Secours Charity Health System, Inc., and Bon Secours Community Hospital. The court had stayed the case while the insurance carrier for the Piserchia defendants was being liquidated.
The plaintiffs asked the court to lift the stay. Defense counsel reported that the Piserchia defendants had hired new counsel and requested time to transfer the case file and change attorneys.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered new counsel to file an appearance and substitution notice by January 29, 2020. He also ordered the parties to state by February 12 whether they consented to lifting the stay or to file opposition, with any reply due February 19.
The detailed version
- Tooth v. Piserchia · No. 7:17-cv-02124
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 15, 2020
Background
Ilona Tooth and Nathaniel Tooth brought this action against Thomas A. Piserchia, MD; Thomas A. Piserchia, MD, FAANOS, PC; Bon Secours Charity Health System, Inc.; and Bon Secours Community Hospital. The plaintiffs commenced the case on March 23, 2017, and filed a second amended complaint on July 10, 2017. The court set a May 1, 2018 discovery deadline.
In October 2017, the Piserchia defendants asked to stay the case while Oceanus Insurance Company, their medical malpractice insurance carrier, went through liquidation after being declared insolvent by the South Carolina Department of Insurance. The request stated that a South Carolina state court had enjoined further proceedings against Oceanus's insureds during the liquidation. The court granted the stay.
The order discussed a later decision by the Appellate Division, Second Department, concerning another action against Oceanus insureds. That court ruled that the South Carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over the plaintiffs in that action and that neither the Full Faith and Credit Clause nor interstate comity required recognition of the South Carolina injunction.
Motions and Proceedings
After that decision, counsel for the Piserchia defendants said he had not been retained by those defendants and intended to seek permission to withdraw. The court directed the plaintiffs' counsel to move to lift the stay by December 30, 2019, and directed the Piserchia defendants' counsel to move to withdraw by January 15, 2020.
Plaintiffs' counsel moved to lift the stay on January 14, 2020, stating that the parties were conferring about the future discovery schedule. On the same day, counsel for the Piserchia defendants reported that another law firm had been retained and requested time for the change of attorneys and transfer of the file.
Ruling
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered newly retained counsel for the Piserchia defendants to file an appearance and either a consent to change attorneys or another substitution notice by January 29, 2020.
The court further ordered that, by February 12, 2020, either all counsel must file a joint letter stating that all parties consented to lifting the stay, or defendants must file opposition to the plaintiffs' motion. If defendants opposed lifting the stay, the plaintiffs could file a reply by February 19, 2020. If all parties consented, the joint letter had to include a proposed revised discovery plan and scheduling order. The court also ordered the Piserchia defendants' counsel to serve the order on newly retained counsel.
The order did not itself grant or deny the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay; it established the next procedural steps and deadlines.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.