Y and J Properties, Ltd. v. United States
17-1189
| Fed. Cl. | Sep 22, 2017Background
- Dozens to hundreds of Hurricane Sandy–related property cases were filed in federal district courts (E.D.N.Y., D.N.J.) and transferred/referenced for coordinated case management; the Court of Federal Claims scheduled a status conference to consider similar procedures.
- District courts created uniform case-management plans addressing mass-joinder problems, relation/consolidation of matters involving the same property, expedited (automatic) disclosures, and early alternative dispute resolution (arbitration/mediation).
- Courts identified many ‘‘mass-joinder’’ complaints in which large groups of insured property owners were joined in single suits merely because they shared a common insurer; judges ordered dismissal of all but the first-named plaintiff in misjoined actions unless refiled properly.
- For ‘‘common property’’ cases (multiple suits concerning the same property or overlapping wind/flood claims), courts ordered relation/assignment to the same judge to avoid inconsistent results and to enable joint inspections and shared experts.
- The orders mandate limited, expedited automatic disclosures from plaintiffs and defendants within short deadlines (typically 30–60 days), a privilege-log procedure, narrow additional written discovery limits, strict deposition/expert deadlines, and prompt submission to arbitration or mediation within fixed timeframes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mass joinder / misjoinder | Joint filing is efficient and lowers costs/fees | Mass joinder is improper; plaintiffs should be separately named | Court ordered dismissal of all but first-named plaintiff in misjoined actions and required identification of additional misjoined cases for correction |
| Relation / consolidation of same-property cases | Prefer separate proceedings; some opposed relation/consolidation | Relation saves resources; avoids inconsistent rulings and allows joint fact-finding | Court related cases concerning the same property to the same judges; consolidation for discovery left to assigned judges |
| Automatic discovery / expedited disclosures | Plaintiffs sought predictability and efficiency; provided some data | Defendants sought prompt access to claims files and basis for denials | Court adopted uniform, automatic disclosure rules (plaintiff and defendant lists and documents) on tight timelines and limited further discovery |
| Dismissal of certain claims / remedies | Plaintiffs sought jury trials, state-law and extra-contractual remedies (punitive damages, fees) | Defendants argued such claims are preempted or unavailable under NFIA/WYO regime | Court (and D.N.J. standing order) dismissed jury demands, state-law claims, punitive damages, and certain parties (e.g., FEMA directors) from WYO actions; set procedure for seeking reinstatement |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (Sup. Ct.) (no Seventh Amendment jury right against the United States)
- Van Holt v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 163 F.3d 161 (3d Cir.) (WYO 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.) (state-law claims preempted by the NFIA in flood-insurance cases)
- Teen-Ed, Inc. v. Kimball International, Inc., 620 F.2d 399 (3d Cir.) (standards for non‑expert opinion testimony under Rule 701 cited for trial preparation)
- Messa v. Omaha Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 122 F. Supp. 2d 513 (D.N.J.) (punitive damages not available in NFIP/WYO claims)
- 3608 Sounds Ave. Condo. Ass’n v. S.C. Ins. Co., 58 F. Supp. 2d 499 (D.N.J.) (extra-contractual remedies and punitive damages not cognizable under NFIA)