Mario Badescu Skin Care, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-06699
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mario Badescu v. Sentinel, Judge Torres denied both parties’ request to pause deposition and expert discovery pending Sentinel’s anticipated motion to dismiss.
Mario Badescu Skin Care, Inc. and Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited; their joint request to pause deposition and expert discovery was denied.
What happened
Mario Badescu Skin Care, Inc. sued Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited, over insurance coverage for income it says it lost when its salon and spa operations were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The parties jointly asked the court to pause deposition and expert discovery until Sentinel’s planned motion to dismiss the amended complaint was decided. They had completed document discovery and said avoiding further discovery costs would be useful while the court considered whether the amended complaint stated a claim.
The court denied the request. Judge Analisa Torres did not provide additional reasons in the order.
The detailed version
- Mario Badescu Skin Care, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited · No. 1:20-cv-06699
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 8, 2021
Background
This case concerns an insurance-coverage dispute arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Mario Badescu Skin Care, Inc. alleges that its insurance contract with Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited, covers income it lost after its salon and spa operations were suspended beginning in March 2020.
The parties had completed document discovery and had submitted a proposed agreement allowing Mario Badescu to file an amended complaint. Sentinel intended to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 seeking dismissal of that amended complaint.
The Request
Both parties jointly requested a stay, meaning a temporary pause, of deposition and expert discovery until the court ruled on Sentinel’s anticipated motion to dismiss. They stated that they wanted to avoid the additional expense of that discovery while the court considered whether the amended complaint stated a claim for relief. The request also stated that the parties would resume the case schedule if the anticipated motion were denied.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres denied the joint request. The order did not provide further explanation and did not rule on Sentinel’s anticipated motion to dismiss or the underlying insurance-coverage dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.