Mousilli v. United States
17-1332
| Fed. Cl. | Sep 30, 2017Background
- Post-Hurricane Sandy litigation spawned hundreds of related insurance suits (flood, wind, etc.) in multiple federal districts; the Court of Federal Claims scheduled a status conference and circulated district-court case-management orders for guidance.
- The Eastern District of New York (EDNY) and District of New Jersey (DNJ) adopted centralized case-management protocols to streamline mass Hurricane Sandy litigation, emphasizing expedited disclosures, relation/consolidation, and alternative dispute resolution.
- EDNY Case Management Order No. 1: (1) appoints liaison counsel; (2) requires dismissal of improperly mass-joined plaintiffs (leave to refile individually); (3) relates cases involving the same property; (4) orders limited automatic disclosures from both sides and early arbitration/mediation.
- DNJ Standing Order / HSCMO: applies to NFIP/WYO and direct FEMA suits, sets a six-month median disposition target, requires automatic disclosures, limits discovery (interrogatories, RFPs, depositions), mandates early ADR (appraisal/arbitration/mediation), and dismisses certain claims as a rule.
- Both orders aim to reduce duplicative work, curb meritless or inflated claims, and accelerate resolution while preserving district judges’ discretion on consolidation for discovery/trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mass joinder of multiple plaintiffs in one complaint | Joinder is convenient and saves filing fees | Mass joinder is improper where plaintiffs lack common transactions or defendants | Court ordered dismissal of all but first-named plaintiff in misjoined actions; allowed refiling consistent with Case Relation Rule |
| Multiple cases involving same property (relation/consolidation) | Some plaintiffs opposed relation/consolidation | Defendants/supporting judges argued relation reduces inconsistent rulings and saves resources | Cases concerning the same property are to be related to the same judge; consolidation for discovery left to assigned judges |
| Early, uniform disclosures and limited discovery | Plaintiffs sought orderly but fair discovery; urged efficiency | Defendants sought standardized disclosures to evaluate coverage defenses and avoid extensive discovery | Courts required automatic 60-day disclosures (documents, claims, adjuster reports, proof-of-loss, claim logs) and limited additional written discovery and depositions within set deadlines |
| Claims and remedies available in NFIP/WYO cases (jury, state-law, punitive) | Plaintiffs sometimes pleaded state-law claims, jury demands, punitive damages | Defendants argued these are preempted or unavailable in NFIP/WYO cases | DNJ order dismisses jury demands, state-law claims, punitive damages, and certain FEMA officers/officials as parties; provides a procedure to seek reinstatement with legal basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1981) (Seventh Amendment jury right does not apply to suits against the federal government)
- Van Holt v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 163 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 1998) (WYO-company suits are, effectively, suits against the United States; NFIA preemption implications)
- C.E.R. 1988, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 386 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2004) (state-law claims related to insurance denials are preempted by the NFIA)
- Messa v. Omaha Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 122 F. Supp. 2d 513 (D.N.J. 2000) (punitive/extracontractual damages not available in NFIP cases)
- 3608 Sounds Ave. Condo. Ass’n v. S.C. Ins. Co., 58 F. Supp. 2d 499 (D.N.J. 1999) (state common-law punitive damages and attorney-fee claims are not cognizable under the NFIA)