Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County et al
| Progressive Casualty Insurance Company |
| Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County, Joseph Eisenbach, Chaya Mushka Eisenbach and Shannon Shepard |
| 3:2023cv00326 |
| March 10, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| S Dave Vatti |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 4, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
ORDER. As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant Shannon Shepard has not appeared through counsel or filed a notice of pro se appearance. Thus, if Defendant Shepard does not appear and file a response to the complaint by May 15, 2023, Plaintiff must move for entry of default against that Defendant, as previously instructed by the Court. ECF No. 14. Moreover, although the other Defendants have appeared through counsel, see ECF No. 15, the answer filed at ECF No. 16 states that the answer is filed only on behalf of Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County. Thus, if Defendants Joseph Eisenbach and Chaya Mushka Eisenbach do not file a response to the complaint by May 15, 2023, Plaintiff must also move for entry of default against those Defendants. In addition, the Court observes that Defendant Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County's answer to the complaint does not actually answer the allegations of the complaint. The form answer, available on the District of Connecticut's website, instructs the defendant to include a separate page of numbered paragraphs responding to the allegations in the corresponding numbered paragraphs of the complaint. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). For example, for each paragraph in the complaint, the defendant can admit the allegations in full or in part, deny the allegations in full or in part, or state that the defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations. Defendant Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County's answer does not contain a separate page responding to the allegations of the complaint and thus is incomplete. If Defendant Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County does not file an amended, fully responsive answer to the complaint by May 15, 2023, Plaintiff must move for entry of default against that Defendant. Finally, all Defendants are reminded that, if they file a response to the complaint, they must also file a motion for extension of time nunc pro tunc stating why there is good cause for their failure to comply with the scheduling requirements of the Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 5/4/2023. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
| Filing 16 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses and Special Defenses by Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County, Chaya Mushka Eisenbach, Joseph Eisenbach.(Molyneaux, Christopher) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher J. Molyneaux on behalf of Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County, Chaya Mushka Eisenbach, Joseph Eisenbach (Molyneaux, Christopher) |
|
Filing 14
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO ANSWER OR TIMELY RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. Defendants were required to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint by April 18, 2023. See ECF No. 13. Accordingly, given Defendants' failure to timely file an answer or other response to the complaint, the Court directs Plaintiff to move for entry of a default against Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) on or before May 15, 2023. Failure to do so will result in the Court dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 41(a). In the event that Defendants choose in the interim to file an answer or other response to the complaint, Defendants shall also file a motion for extension of time nunc pro tunc stating why there is good cause for their failure to comply with the scheduling requirements of the Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 4/24/2023. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
| Answer deadline updated for Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County to 4/18/2023; Chaya Mushka Eisenbach to 4/18/2023; Joseph Eisenbach to 4/18/2023; Shannon Shepard to 4/18/2023. See 13 order. (Bozek, M.) |
|
Filing 13
ORDER. All Defendants shall respond to the complaint by April 18, 2023. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 3/31/2023. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
| Filing 12 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Chaya Mushka Eisenbach on 03/21/2023, filed by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company. (Siegel, Lee) |
| Filing 11 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County on 03/28/2023, filed by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company. (Siegel, Lee) |
| Filing 10 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Joseph Eisenbach on 03/28/2023, filed by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company. (Siegel, Lee) |
| Per document #9 , updated answer deadline for Shannon Shepard to 04/18/2023. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 9 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Shannon Shepard on 03/24/2023, filed by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company. (Siegel, Lee) |
| Filing 8 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County, Chaya Mushka Eisenbach, Joseph Eisenbach, Shannon Shepard* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Lee Scott Siegel* *Hurwitz Fine P.C.* *575 Broad Hollow Rd* *Melvile, NY 11747*. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of 2 Notice re: Disclosure Statement, #4 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #6 Protective Order, #5 Electronic Filing Order, #1 Complaint filed by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, #3 Corporate Disclosure Statement, filed by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company. Signed by Clerk on 3/14/2023. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company identifying Corporate Parent Drive New Jersey Insurance Company, Corporate Parent Drive New Jersey Insurance Company for Progressive Casualty Insurance Company. (Siegel, Lee) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to All Defendants. (Siegel, Lee) |
|
Filing 6
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 3/10/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 3/10/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 5/9/2023. Discovery due by 9/9/2023. Dispositive Motions due by 10/14/2023. Signed by Clerk on 3/10/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
| Judge Sarala V. Nagala and Judge S. Dave Vatti added. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 2 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, any nongovernmental corporate party must electronically file a disclosure statement that identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock or states that there is no such corporation. Such disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 3/10/23.(Hushin, Z.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $402 receipt number ACTDC-7268528.), filed by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company.(Siegel, Lee) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
