Hollis, Jr. v. United States, 17-1300

Background

Multiple related Hurricane Sandy insurance cases consolidated in the Court of Federal Claims docket for case-management purposes; the court scheduled a status conference and circulated sample district-court CMO materials from Sandy litigation.
The attached district-court orders (E.D.N.Y. and D.N.J.) address mass-joinder problems, case relation/consolidation, expedited automatic discovery, and compulsory alternative dispute resolution (arbitration/mediation) for Sandy cases.
The district CMOs require plaintiffs in misjoined actions to dismiss all but the first-named plaintiff and direct parties to identify additional misjoins and related common-property cases for reassignment.
The CMOs adopt uniform automatic disclosures (60 days in E.D.N.Y.; 30 days in D.N.J. for similar items) requiring parties to exchange key claim information and claim-file documents, produce privilege logs, and meet-and-confer on ESI and production format.
The CMOs dismiss certain categories of claims/parties in NFIP/WYO actions (e.g., jury demands, state-law extra-contractual claims, punitive damages, and certain FEMA officers/directors) and set fast discovery and ADR timetables (aiming for short median disposition times and prompt arbitration/mediation).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Improper mass joinder of many plaintiffs in single complaints	Mass joinder is efficient and cost-saving for plaintiffs	Mass joinder is improper when plaintiffs share only a common defendant; it evades filing-fee requirements and burdens judicial resources	Court orders dismissal of all but first-named plaintiffs in misjoined actions and requires identification of other misjoins for correction
Relation/consolidation of cases involving same property	Plaintiffs resisted broad relation/consolidation	Defendants support relation for common defenses and efficiency	Court directs relation (assignment to same judge) for cases involving the same property; consolidation for discovery left to assigned judges
Scope and timing of initial discovery (automatic disclosures)	Plaintiffs want efficient procedures but object to overly burdensome early exchanges	Defendants seek early disclosure of policies, claims, adjuster reports, communications, and claim files to evaluate and defend claims	Court adopts uniform automatic disclosures and document production requirements (itemized damages, policy/claim numbers, adjuster reports, claim files) with strict short deadlines and privilege-log rules
Use of ADR (arbitration/mediation) to resolve claims	Plaintiffs may prefer litigation; some may consent to mediation/arbitration	Defendants favor compulsory ADR to reduce docket and resolve loss disputes efficiently	Court requires notice of arbitration or stipulation to mediation shortly after initial phase discovery; ADR to conclude within set timeframe; unresolved matters return to judge for trial

Key Cases Cited

Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (U.S.) (Seventh Amendment jury right does not apply in suits against United States)
Van Holt v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 163 F.3d 161 (3d Cir.) (WYO-company suits are functionally suits against the United States; state-law claims may be preempted)
C.E.R. 1988, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 386 F.3d 263 (3d Cir.) (state-law claims in NFIA context are preempted)
Messa v. Omaha Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 122 F. Supp. 2d 513 (D.N.J.) (punitive/extracontractual damages not available under NFIP claims)
3608 Sounds Ave. Condo. Ass’n v. S.C. Ins. Co., 58 F. Supp. 2d 499 (D.N.J.) (state common-law claims for punitive damages and attorney’s fees not cognizable in NFIA suits)