866 East 164th Street, LLC v. Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company
||866 East 164th Street, LLC
||Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company
||May 17, 2016
||US District Court for the Southern District of New York
||Foley Square Office
||Katherine B. Forrest
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
||42 U.S.C. § 4053
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|October 3, 2017
OPINION & ORDER: re: 74 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 80 CROSS MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law, filed by 866 East 164th Street, LLC. For these reasons, Union Mutual 's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and plaintiff's cross-motion is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motions at ECF Nos. 74 and 80 and close this case, and as further set forth in this ord er. Motions terminated: 80 CROSS MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law, filed by 866 East 164th Street, LLC, 74 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 10/3/2017) (ap)
|April 6, 2017
OPINION AND ORDER re: 59 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct 58 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct 7 Amended Complaint, Affirmation of Steven A. Kotchek in Support filed by 866 East 164th Street, LLC; 58 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct 7 Amended Complaint, filed by 866 East 164th Street, LLC; 60 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct 58 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct 7 Amended Complaint, Memorandum of Law filed by 866 Eas t 164th Street, LLC. Accordingly, plaintiff has not shown good cause to justify modifying the scheduling order. Given that plaintiff's diligence is the primary consideration in a Rule 16(b) analysis, the Court is guided by plaintiff's fai lure to so act and declines to reach the issue of prejudice. See Jackson v. Odenat, 9 F. Supp.3d 342, 369-70 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)(declining to reconsider the denial of a motion to amend that was based solely on the party's lack of diligence under Ru le 16(b) and rejecting the argument that the court had erred in not considering prejudice to the opposing party). Plaintiff's alternative argument that defendant would actually benefit by having another defendant added to the matter is irreleva nt. Plaintiff's eleventh-hour request for leave to amend its complaint is therefore DENIED. The Court requests the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 58, 59 & 60. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 4/6/2017) (anc)
|November 23, 2016
OPINION & ORDER: re: 35 LETTER MOTION for Discovery addressed to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn from Steven A. Kotchek dated 11/21/2016. filed by 866 East 164th Street, LLC. Assuming that the individuals with Roundhill Express email a ddresses on UNION0279 and UNION0286 are in fact Union Mutual Insurance Company representatives, UNION0279 contains a naked question of law clearly posed to elicit legal advice, and UNION0286 contains both the same question and a one-sentence response from Mr. Gold in his capacity as attorney, not as a claims investigator. In these two exemplars, only the question and the response should be redacted, and the documents should otherwise be produced.The Court requests the Clerk of Court to close docket entry number 35.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 11/23/2016) (ama)
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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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.
Why Is My Information Online?