Makhnevich v. Arrowood Indemnity Company
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-01559
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Makhnevich v. Arrowood Indemnity Company: Defendants withdrew their standing motion, and Judge Furman deemed it withdrawn.
Stacy Makhnevich and the defendants in the case were affected. The defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing was withdrawn and deemed withdrawn; the court also directed that an initial pretrial conference be scheduled.
What happened
In Stacy Makhnevich v. Arrowood Indemnity Company, the defendants had moved to dismiss for lack of standing. The plaintiff’s opposition said she spent $9.41 and $8.05 on mailing costs connected to requests for debt verification and document production.
The defendants said a recent decision involving a similar mailing expense led them to withdraw their motion. They asked the court to reschedule the initial conference so the case could proceed toward setting litigation dates.
Judge Jesse M. Furman deemed the motion withdrawn, directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 53, and said the court would schedule the initial pretrial conference by separate order. The court did not decide whether the plaintiff had standing.
The detailed version
- Makhnevich v. Arrowood Indemnity Company · No. 1:23-cv-01559
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 26, 2023
Background
The defendants had filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. In opposing that motion, the plaintiff stated that she had spent $9.41 and $8.05 on mailing costs related to requests for debt verification and document production.
Defense counsel reported that he had learned of a decision addressing standing in a case involving the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. That decision found that a plaintiff’s $7.38 mailing expense connected to a debt-verification request was enough to establish an injury in fact. Based on that decision and the plaintiff’s disclosure of her mailing costs, the defendants withdrew their motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman commended defense counsel for his candor and deemed the motion withdrawn. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 53. The court stated that it would schedule the initial pretrial conference by separate order.
The opinion does not decide whether the plaintiff had standing or otherwise resolve the underlying claims. It addresses only the withdrawal of the defendants’ motion and related scheduling matters.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.