Houston Casualty Company v. Andrew Smith Company
Plaintiff: Houston Casualty Company
Defendant: Andrew Smith Company
Case Number: 1:2022cv03615
Filed: May 4, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Analisa Torres
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 dj Declaratory Judgment
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 23, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
June 30, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER granting #10 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. GRANTED. By July 15, 2022, the parties shall file their joint letter and proposed case management plan. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 6/30/2022) (kv)
June 29, 2022 Filing 10 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to submit materials per Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order addressed to Judge Analisa Torres from Courtney E. Scott dated June 29, 2022. Document filed by Houston Casualty Company..(Scott, Courtney)
May 19, 2022 Filing 9 WAIVER OF SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED. Andrew Smith Company waiver sent on 5/11/2022, answer due 7/11/2022. Document filed by Houston Casualty Company..(Scott, Courtney)
May 10, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER: To protect the public health, while promoting the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding," Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, it is ORDERED pursuant to Rules 30(b)(3) and 30(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that all depositions in this action may be taken via telephone, videoconference, or other remote means. It is further ORDERED pursuant to Rule 30(b)(5) that a deposition will be deemed to have taken place "before an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28" if such officer attends the deposition using the same remote means used to connect all other participants, so long as all participants (including the officer) can clearly hear and be heard by all other participants. The parties are encouraged to engage in discovery through remote means at every available opportunity. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 5/10/2022) (vfr)
May 10, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 7 INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER:Counsel for all parties are directed to submit a joint letter and a jointly proposed Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order by July 5, 2022, in accordance with Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the instructions set forth below. (As further set forth in this Order.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 5/10/2022) (vfr)
May 10, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER: To conserve resources, to promote judicial efficiency, and in an effort to achieve a faster disposition of this matter, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties must discuss whether they are willing to consent, under 28 U.S.C. 636(c), to conducting all further proceedings before the assigned Magistrate Judge. If all parties consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge, counsel for Defendant shall, by July 5, 2022, e-mail a fully executed Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form, as further set forth herein. If any party does not consent to conducting all further proceedings before the assigned Magistrate Judge, the parties must file a joint letter, by July 5 2022, advising the Court that the parties do not consent, but without disclosing the identity of the party or parties who do not consent. The parties are free to withhold consent without negative consequences. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 5/10/2022) (vfr)
May 9, 2022 Filing 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT amending #1 Complaint against Andrew Smith Company.Document filed by Houston Casualty Company. Related document: #1 Complaint. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Insurance Policy).(Scott, Courtney)
May 6, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER: Plaintiff brings this action against Andrew Smith Company, invoking subject matter jurisdiction by reason of diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. 1332. Plaintiff states that Andrew Smith Company is a limited liability company. ECF No. 1 2. If Defendant is in fact a limited liability company, then the complaint must allege the citizenship of natural persons who are members of the limited liability company and the place of incorporation and principal place of business of any corporate entities who are members of the limited liability company. By May 13, 2022, Plaintiff shall amend its pleading to allege the citizenship of each constituent person or entity. See Handelsman v. Bedford Vill. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 48, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2000) (citing Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998)); Strother v. Harte, 171 F. Supp. 2d 203, 205 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members."). If Plaintiff fails to amend by the foregoing date to truthfully allege complete diversity based upon the citizenship of each constituent person or entity of the limited liability company, then the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Amended Pleadings due by 5/13/2022. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 5/6/2022) (kv)
May 5, 2022 CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above-entitled action is assigned to Judge Analisa Torres. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/district-judges. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related-instructions..(gp)
May 5, 2022 Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (gp)
May 5, 2022 Case Designated ECF. (gp)
May 4, 2022 Filing 3 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Corporate Parent HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc., Corporate Parent Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co. Ltd., Corporate Parent Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc., Corporate Parent Illium, Inc. for Houston Casualty Company. Document filed by Houston Casualty Company..(Scott, Courtney)
May 4, 2022 Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed..(Scott, Courtney)
May 4, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Andrew Smith Company. (Filing Fee $ 402.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC-26101348)Document filed by Houston Casualty Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Insurance Policy).(Scott, Courtney)

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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Houston Casualty Company v. Andrew Smith Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Houston Casualty Company
Represented By: Courtney Elizabeth Scott
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Andrew Smith Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?