Daileader v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London Syndicate 1861 et al

Filing 37

ORDER terminating #18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff will amend his preliminary injunction motion previously filed in the District of South Carolina action (Dkt. No. 18) to address Second Circuit authority, and refile any such motion by August 17, 2022. Defendants' opposition will be due by August 31, 2022. Any reply will be due by September 7, 2022. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion (Dkt. No. 18). SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 8/2/2022) (ks)

Case 1:22-cv-05408-PGG Document 37
36 Filed 08/02/22
08/01/22 Page 1 of 2

ANDERSON KILL P.C.
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS ◼ NEW YORK, NY 10020
TELEPHONE: [phone] ◼ FAX: [phone]
www.andersonkill.com
Raymond A. Mascia Jr., Esq.
[e-mail]
212-278-1359

VIA ECF

August 1, 2022

Hon. Paul G. Gardephe
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square, Room 2204
New York, NY 10007
Re:

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London – Syndicate 1861, Subscribing to Policy
No. ANV122398A, et al. v. Timothy Daileader, et al., No. 1:22-cv-02038-PGG
(the “Declaratory Judgment Action”)
Timothy Daileader v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London – Syndicate 1861,
Subscribing to Policy No. ANV122398A, et al., No. 1:22-cv-05408-PGG (the
“Coverage Action”)

Dear Judge Gardephe:
We represent Timothy Daileader in the above-referenced actions, which involve a
coverage dispute between Mr. Daileader and four D&O liability insurance companies that sold
excess D&O insurance coverage to non-party Oaktree Medical Centre PC and related entities (the
“Excess Insurance Companies”). Mr. Daileader is an individual insured under the policies.
The Excess Insurance Companies commenced the Declaratory Judgment Action in New
York State Supreme Court seeking declaratory judgment that they have no coverage obligations to
Mr. Daileader for a series of adversary proceedings against him asserted by the Chapter 7 Trustee of
the bankruptcy estates of the Oaktree entities. Mr. Daileader removed the Declaratory Judgment
Action to this Court based on bankruptcy and federal question jurisdiction. The Excess Insurance
Companies have moved to remand. That motion is fully briefed and pending before Your Honor.
Mr. Daileader also filed the Coverage Action in the District of South Carolina, which was
pending before U.S. District Judge Henry M. Herlong. The Excess Insurance Companies moved to
dismiss, or in the alternative to stay or to transfer the Coverage Action. By order dated June 23,
2022, Judge Herlong transferred Mr. Daileader’s Coverage Action to this Court.
On June 27, 2022, after Judge Herlong’s transfer order, but before the Coverage Action was
officially transferred and opened in this Court, I filed a letter on the docket of the Declaratory
Judgment Action to alert the Court that the Coverage Action had been transferred and to request a
telephone conference and supplemental briefing schedule in connection with Mr. Daileader’s motion
for a preliminary injunction pending in the Coverage Action.

New York, NY ◼ Los Angeles, CA ◼ Denver, CO ◼ Stamford, CT ◼ Washington, DC ◼ Newark, NJ ◼ Philadelphia, PA

Case 1:22-cv-05408-PGG Document 37
36 Filed 08/02/22
08/01/22 Page 2 of 2
Anderson Kill P.C.
Hon. Paul G. Gardephe
August 1, 2022
Page 2
Pursuant to my discussion with and at the request of Chambers today, I am re-filing my
June 27 letter on the docket of the Coverage Action. The June 27 letter is attached as Exhibit 1.
In addition, for the sake of completeness, I also have attached a response letter, dated June 28,
2022, from the Excess Insurance Companies (Exhibit 2), and a reply letter, date June 30, 2022,
that we filed on behalf of Mr. Daileader (Exhibit 3).
We thank Your Honor for your consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Raymond A. Mascia Jr.
Raymond A. Mascia Jr.
cc:

Counsel of Record via ECF

MEMO ENDORSED:
Plaintiff will amend his preliminary injunction motion – previously filed in the District of
South Carolina action (Dkt. No. 18) – to address Second Circuit authority, and refile any
such motion by August 17, 2022. Defendants’ opposition will be due by August 31, 2022.
Any reply will be due by September 7, 2022. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate
the motion (Dkt. No. 18).

Dated: August 2, 2022