Makhnevich v. Arrowood Indemnity Company
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-01559
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Makhnevich v. Arrowood, Judge Furman ordered briefing on standing and referred the case to settlement after Plaintiff missed a conference.
Stacey Makhnevich and the defendants, including Arrowood Indemnity Company; the order required the defendants to file a jurisdictional dismissal motion, set briefing deadlines, and referred the parties to settlement discussions.
What happened
In Makhnevich v. Arrowood Indemnity Company, the court held an initial pretrial conference, but Stacey Makhnevich did not appear.
Before allowing discovery to begin, the court said it had to determine whether it had authority to hear the case. The defendants argued that Makhnevich had not shown a concrete injury because, although she alleged that they placed a lien on her primary residence that could restrict her ability to move, she did not allege that she was trying to move.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the defendants to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and set deadlines for the parties’ filings. He also referred the parties to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for settlement discussions. The order did not decide whether Makhnevich had standing or dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Makhnevich v. Arrowood Indemnity Company · No. 1:23-cv-01559
- Jesse Furman
- June 29, 2023
Background
The parties had been ordered to attend an initial pretrial conference on June 29, 2023, but Plaintiff Stacey Makhnevich did not appear. The court reviewed her Complaint and a letter filed by Defendants Arrowood Indemnity Company and the other defendants.
Jurisdiction and Standing
Before discovery could begin, the court said it had an independent duty to confirm that it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the lawsuit. The specific issue was standing, which requires a plaintiff to allege and prove an actual or imminent injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that the court can remedy the injury.
The defendants argued that Makhnevich had not alleged an injury in fact. According to the opinion, she alleged that the defendants placed a lien on her primary residence, restricting her ability to relocate, but did not allege that she was attempting to move.
Order
The court ordered the defendants to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by July 20, 2023. It set August 17, 2023, as the deadline for Makhnevich’s opposition and August 24, 2023, as the deadline for the defendants’ reply. The court did not rule on standing or dismiss the case in this order.
The court also stated that the parties were open to settlement and entered a separate order referring them to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for settlement purposes. The parties were directed to contact that judge within one week to schedule a settlement conference. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Makhnevich.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.