Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-06243
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Volino v. Progressive Casualty, Judge Schofield denied Plaintiffs’ request to modify the certified class because it was unsupported and untimely.
The Plaintiffs and the certified class definition addressed in the March 16, 2023, order.
What happened
In Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, the Plaintiffs asked the court to change the class definition in an earlier order that certified a class.
The court treated the request as a motion to modify the class under Rule 23 or, alternatively, as a request for reconsideration. It found that the Plaintiffs identified no change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice, and that the request was filed more than 14 days after the earlier order.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the Plaintiffs’ request to modify the class definition. The opinion does not describe the proposed change to the class definition.
The detailed version
- Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company · No. 1:21-cv-06243
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 27, 2023
Background
On April 7, 2023, Plaintiffs submitted a pre-motion letter asking the court to modify the class definition in its March 16, 2023, Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The opinion does not state what change Plaintiffs sought.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1), a class-certification order may be altered or amended before final judgment. The court explained that modification ordinarily requires an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court stated that the same strict standard applies to reconsideration, which is not a way to relitigate old issues or present new theories. The court also noted that a reconsideration motion generally must be served within 14 days after the court’s ruling, under Local Rule 6.3 of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
Court’s analysis
The court construed Plaintiffs’ pre-motion letter as a motion to modify the class under Rule 23(c)(1), or alternatively as a motion for reconsideration. It found that the motion did not identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. The court also found the motion untimely because it was filed more than 14 days after the March 16, 2023, order.
Disposition
The court ordered that Plaintiffs’ request to modify the class definition was DENIED.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.
Related cases
- Catherine McKoy, Marcus Frazier and Lynn Chadwick v. The Trump Corporation and…Feb 2024
- Curtisv. JPMorgan Chase
- In re Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. Securities LitigationJan 2024
- Catherine McKoy, Marcus Frazier and Lynn Chadwick v. The Trump Corporation and…Jan 2024
- Catherine McKoy, Marcus Frazier and Lynn Chadwick v. The Trump Corporation and…Nov 2023
- Reynoldsv. Marymount Manhattan