Firshein v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-00778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Firshein v. UnitedHealth, Judge Carter ordered Bank of America to join a conference and required discussion of jurisdiction and possible damages beyond diverted checks.
Firshein, UnitedHealth Group, Inc., and Bank of America Corp.; Bank of America was directed to participate in the telephone conference, and the parties were directed to prepare to discuss jurisdiction and damages.
What happened
In Firshein v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., the court received the plaintiff’s June 12, 2020 letter concerning the case. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
The court directed Bank of America to participate in the next day’s telephone conference. It also directed the parties to be ready to discuss whether a prior case might affect the court’s jurisdiction and whether the claims against the defendants seek damages beyond the amount of the diverted checks.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. issued this order on June 16, 2020. The order did not decide the jurisdiction or damages questions; it required the parties to address them at the conference.
The detailed version
- Firshein v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-00778
- Andrew Carter
- June 16, 2020
What the order says
The court stated that it had received the plaintiff’s June 12, 2020 letter. It directed Bank of America Corp. to participate in the next day’s telephone conference.
Issues for discussion
The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss how Tongkook America, Inc. v. Shipton Sportswear Co., 14 F.3d 781 (2d Cir. 1994), might affect the court’s jurisdiction. Jurisdiction concerns the court’s authority to hear the case. The parties also had to address whether the claims against UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and Bank of America Corp. seek damages beyond the amount of the diverted checks.
Disposition
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. issued a case-management order directing participation in the telephone conference and preparation to discuss those issues. The excerpt does not state the court’s answer to the jurisdiction question or the damages question, and it does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.