Abouchaaoua v. Snow
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-11423
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Abouchaaoua v. Snow, Judge Roman denied Abouchaaoua’s motion for a clearer defense, finding it understandable but leaving its legal applicability unresolved.
The ruling affected Abdelelazziz Abouchaaoua’s request for clarification of Jeffrey Snow and Matthew David Snow’s fourth affirmative defense. It left that defense in place without deciding whether New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Article 16 ultimately applies.
What happened
Abouchaaoua sued Jeffrey Snow and Matthew David Snow for money damages after a rear-end vehicle collision. Abouchaaoua asked the court to require a clearer explanation of the defendants’ fourth affirmative defense, which relied on a New York law limiting certain liability for non-economic damages.
The court found that the defense was not so vague or unclear that Abouchaaoua could not respond. The court did not decide whether the defense ultimately applies, including whether the alleged facts involve only one driver or whether either defendant can use the statutory protection.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the motion for a more definite statement. He also directed the parties to submit a proposed case-management and scheduling plan by October 28, 2020, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Abouchaaoua v. Snow · No. 7:19-cv-11423
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 7, 2020
Background
Abdelelazziz Abouchaaoua brought this action against Jeffrey Snow and Matthew David Snow seeking monetary damages arising from a rear-end motor vehicle collision. The defendants filed an answer that included a fourth affirmative defense. That defense stated that, if Abouchaaoua recovered damages under a theory of joint liability, the defendants sought the protection provided by New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Article 16.
The opinion also states that the parties had not complied with the court’s earlier direction to submit a proposed case-management plan and scheduling order. The defendants likewise had not responded to the court’s direction concerning Abouchaaoua’s motion.
Motion and Legal Standard
Abouchaaoua moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) for a more definite statement. That rule permits such a motion when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the moving party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion was unopposed.
Abouchaaoua argued that the fourth affirmative defense should be clarified. He also alleged that there was only one driver, Michael D. Snow, and that New York Civil Practice Law and Rules sections 1601 and 1602(6) therefore made the defense inapplicable.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Article 16 generally allows a defendant whose share of fault is 50 percent or less to limit its liability for non-economic damages to its proportionate share in certain cases involving jointly liable tortfeasors. The court concluded that the defendants’ fourth affirmative defense adequately stated that they were seeking this statutory limitation.
The court held that the defense was not vague or ambiguous. It recognized that Abouchaaoua might ultimately be correct that one or both defendants could not use the Article 16 protections. But discovery had not occurred and no factual determinations had been made, so the court did not decide whether the defense would succeed or apply to the facts.
Disposition
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Abouchaaoua’s motion for a more definite statement. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 12. The parties were again directed to confer and submit a proposed case-management plan and scheduling order by October 28, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.