Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Community Health Center, Inc. et al
Filing
64
ORDER & REASONS re: 42 MOTION for Extension of Discovery Deadlines MOTION Modify Scheduling Order, or case is Complex, 38 MOTION to Strike Reconventional Demand. ORDERED that the 38 MOTION to Strike Reconventional Demand is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the 42 MOTION for Extension of Discovery Deadlines MOTION Modify Scheduling Order, or case is Complex is DENIED. Signed by Judge Helen Ginger Berrigan on 4/2/12. (PLH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
ET AL
VERSUS
CIVIL ACTION
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC.,
ET AL
SECTION ʺCʺ (5)
NO. 08‐810
ORDER AND REASONS
This matter comes before the Court on motion to strike reconventional demand
filed by the plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) and motion to extend
discovery, modify scheduling order and/or to find that case is complex filed by the
defendants, Community Health Center, Inc., Community Health & Rehabilitation
Center, Inc., Kathy Hampton, Leon Hampton and Mid City Imaging. Rec. Docs. 38, 42.
Having considered the record, the memoranda of counsel and the law, the Court rules
as follows.
The plaintiffs, Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company,
Allstate Property & Casualty Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company
and Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company (collectively “Allstate”) have filed a
complaint under diversity jurisdiction, alleging fraud and unjust enrichment against the
defendants for their “marketing and solicitation project” involving individuals
allegedly injured in automobile accidents allegedly caused by Allstate insureds and the
defendants’ provision of false medical reports and bills to attorneys and Allstate,
resulting in damages in the amount of $478,278.00 plus “continuing losses.” Rec. Doc.
1. Prior to transfer to the undersigned, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
remained pending on the docket until this Court’s September 2011 summary denial.
Rec. Doc. 26.
For reasons not apparent in the record, an answer was not filed until February
16, 2012, after trial had been set. Included in the answer was a “reconventional
demand,” which will be treated by the Court as a counterclaim, based on diversity and
unspecified sections of Title VII, seeking damages based on discrimination, harassment,
violations of their interests in personal dignity, freedom from humiliation, safety, health
and general welfare.” Rec. Doc. 35.1
In the motion to strike, the plaintiffs oppose the reconventional demand based on
its untimeliness when measured by the deadlines contained in the Scheduling Order.
Rec. Doc. 30. The plaintiffs’ argument is well‐taken, were it not for the fact that leave of
1
Included as a “reconvener” is an unidentified non‐party defendant, Eugene
Waddis. Counsel for plaintiff is advised that this party is not properly before the
Court.
2
Court is not required to file an initial answer or counterclaim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13.,
and at no time after the denial of the motion to dismiss did the plaintiffs’ move for
default judgment due to the lack of an answer.
Also before the Court is the defendants’ motion to extend discovery, modify
Scheduling Order and “find that case is complex.” Rec. Doc. 42. The defendants argue
that one of the individual defendants is “seriously ill and stressed out” and that the
current deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order do not “provide a reasonable
opportunity for defendants to fully asses [sic] their counterclaim (Reconventional
Demand) and conduct key activities prior to filing same.” Rec. Doc. 42‐1 at 2. No
specific alternative discovery deadlines are suggested by the defendants. The plaintiffs
oppose the motion because of the defendants’ disregard of the deadlines set forth in the
Scheduling Order and failure to show good cause for any delay.
The Court notes that the various pre‐trial deadlines have not yet passed and no
reason has been presented why they can not be met. Rec. Doc. 30. The Court finds that
the defendants have not shown good cause for an indefinite delay, and that good cause
does not otherwise exist because of the filing of their counterclaim. Instead, the
defendants have been afforded in excess of three years to consider and develop the
basis for that counterclaim. In this regard, counsel are advised that this case is one of
3
only three on the docket of the undersigned that has been pending for such a length of
time as to require progress reporting by the undersigned to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion to strike reconventional demand is
DENIED. Rec. Doc. 38.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to extend discovery, modify
scheduling order and/or to find that case is complex filed by the defendants,
Community Health Center, Inc., Community Health & Rehabilitation Center, Inc.,
Kathy Hampton, Leon Hampton and Mid City Imaging, is DENIED. Rec. Doc. 42.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2nd day of April, 2012.
____________________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?