Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 5, 2022

Kaufmann v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-04858
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Kaufmann v. Pacific Employers, Judge Briccetti ordered plaintiffs to choose whether to amend their complaint before Chubb’s motion to dismiss proceeds.

Who this affects

David Kaufmann and Michele Kaufmann, who had to choose whether to amend their complaint, and Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, whose motion to dismiss remained pending.

What happened

In Kaufmann v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, defendant Chubb Group of Insurance Companies asked the court to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a legal claim.

The court ordered David Kaufmann and Michele Kaufmann to tell the court by August 15, 2022, whether they would file an amended complaint or rely on their existing complaint. The court did not decide Chubb’s motion to dismiss in this order.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti stated that, if the plaintiffs amend, they must do so within 14 days after notifying the court. Chubb would then have 21 days to answer, file another dismissal motion, or rely on its original motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Kaufmann v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company · No. 7:22-cv-04858
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Aug. 5, 2022

Background

On August 3, 2022, Chubb Group of Insurance Companies filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows a defendant to seek dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The opinion identifies Pacific Employers Insurance Company and Chubb Group of Insurance Companies as defendants and David Kaufmann and Michele Kaufmann as plaintiffs.

Court’s Order

The court ordered the plaintiffs to notify it by August 15, 2022, whether they intended to file an amended complaint in response to Chubb’s motion or would rely on the existing complaint.

If the plaintiffs chose not to amend, the motion would proceed in the ordinary course. The court stated that it was unlikely to give the plaintiffs another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion.

If the plaintiffs chose to amend, they had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amendment, Chubb could answer the amended complaint, file a motion to dismiss it, or notify the court that it would rely on its initial motion to dismiss.

Disposition

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti’s order established deadlines and procedural options; it did not grant or deny Chubb’s motion to dismiss.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.