Castiblanco v. Allstate Insurance Company
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-02736
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Castiblanco v. Allstate Insurance Company, Judge Broderick ordered a joint letter before deciding how to handle the pending dismissal motion and proposed amendment.
Lilia Castiblanco, Jose Castiblanco, and Allstate Insurance Company; the order governed the next steps for briefing and did not decide either pending motion.
What happened
In Castiblanco v. Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate moved to dismiss the case, and Lilia and Jose Castiblanco initially did not oppose the motion. After the parties discussed extending the briefing schedule, the plaintiffs filed their opposition on August 15, 2023, and included a request to amend their complaint.
The court could not approve the proposed schedule because the plaintiffs had not provided the proposed amended complaint, the schedule did not clearly address the amendment request, and Allstate had not said whether it consented to the amendment or would file a new dismissal motion. The court also noted that an amendment could make the pending dismissal motion unnecessary.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by August 24, 2023, proposing next steps. The letter had to address Allstate’s position on the amendment and dismissal motion and whether the proposed schedule covered the plaintiffs’ amendment request.
The detailed version
- Castiblanco v. Allstate Insurance Company · No. 1:23-cv-02736
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 16, 2023
Background Allstate Insurance Company had filed a motion to dismiss the action. Lilia Castiblanco and Jose Castiblanco initially did not oppose that motion. Allstate later withdrew its request for an order granting the motion after indicating that the parties would seek an extension of time. The parties then proposed a briefing schedule, and the plaintiffs filed their opposition along with a cross-motion to amend their complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which governs requests to amend pleadings.
Issues with the Proposed Schedule The court identified three problems. First, the plaintiffs had not supplied the proposed amended complaint. Second, it was unclear whether the proposed briefing schedule included the plaintiffs’ cross-motion to amend, because the schedule did not provide for a reply on that motion. Third, the court explained that if the complaint were properly amended while Allstate’s dismissal motion remained pending, the court could either treat the dismissal motion as unnecessary or evaluate it using the allegations in the amended complaint. Allstate had not stated whether it consented to the amendment or whether it would rely on its existing dismissal motion or file a new one based on the amended complaint.
Order The court did not decide Allstate’s motion to dismiss or the plaintiffs’ cross-motion to amend. Instead, it ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by August 24, 2023, proposing next steps. The letter had to state whether Allstate consented to the amendment and, relatedly, whether it wanted the pending dismissal motion treated as unnecessary and intended to file a new motion based on any amended complaint. The letter also had to state whether the proposed briefing schedule addressed the cross-motion to amend.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.