Bohnak v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

S.D. New York

Bohnak v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided February 24, 2025·No. 1:21-cv-06096·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK cece ne nn reece nee □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ NANCY BOHNAK, ORDER GRANTING on behalf of herself and all others similarly : SUBSTITUTION OF CLASS situated, REPRESENTATIVE AND DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, : DISMISS -against- : 21 Civ. 6096 (AKH) MARSH & MCLENNAN COS., INC and MARSH & MCLENNAN AGENCY LLC, : Defendants. :

ee ee ee OX ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: I grant Plaintiff Nancy Bohnak’s unepposed motion to substitute Shantel Jones as class representative in this case. “FA] class has a legal status separate from the named plaintiff, thus, should the class representative become inadequate, substitution of an adequate representative is appropriate to protect the interests of the class.” In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1409 (WHP), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31251, at *9-*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2005), Thus, “courts not only may, but should, respond to the pre-certification mooting of a class representative's claims by permitting substitution of a new class representative” especially when “the reason for mootness has only individual rather than classwide impact.” Jn re Nat'l Austl. Bank Sec, Litig., 03 Civ. 6537 (BSJ), 2006 U.S, Dist. LEXIS 94163, at *12-*13 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2006) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Here, Bohnak’s inability to satisfy the amount in suit requirement, based on her individual severance agreement with Defendants, is unique to her, and is not necessarily

applicable to the rest of the class. Accordingly, I grant the motion to substitute the class representative. Defendants previously moved to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction, averring that Bohnak could not meet the statutory amount-in-suit requirement. See ECF No. 79; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Since I grant the motion to substitute Jones as class representative in Bohnak’s place, | deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss as academic. Jones shall file her amended complaint within 21 days of the entry of this order, I need not, and will not, provide an advisory opinion concerning the propriety of including Bohnak as a named plaintiff in an amended complaint that has yet to be filed. Bellikoff v, Eaton Vance Corp., 481 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2007). The Clerk of Court shall terminate ECF Nos. 79 and 82.

Dated: February yy 2025 ber C New York, New York ARVIN K. HELLERSTEIN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK cece ne nn reece nee □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ NANCY BOHNAK, ORDER GRANTING on behalf of herself and all others similarly : SUBSTITUTION OF CLASS situated, REPRESENTATIVE AND DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, : DISMISS -against- : 21 Civ. 6096 (AKH) MARSH & MCLENNAN COS., INC and MARSH & MCLENNAN AGENCY LLC, : Defendants. :

ee ee ee OX ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: I grant Plaintiff Nancy Bohnak’s unepposed motion to substitute Shantel Jones as class representative in this case. “FA] class has a legal status separate from the named plaintiff, thus, should the class representative become inadequate, substitution of an adequate representative is appropriate to protect the interests of the class.” In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1409 (WHP), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31251, at *9-*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2005), Thus, “courts not only may, but should, respond to the pre-certification mooting of a class representative's claims by permitting substitution of a new class representative” especially when “the reason for mootness has only individual rather than classwide impact.” Jn re Nat'l Austl. Bank Sec, Litig., 03 Civ. 6537 (BSJ), 2006 U.S, Dist. LEXIS 94163, at *12-*13 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2006) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Here, Bohnak’s inability to satisfy the amount in suit requirement, based on her individual severance agreement with Defendants, is unique to her, and is not necessarily

applicable to the rest of the class. Accordingly, I grant the motion to substitute the class representative. Defendants previously moved to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction, averring that Bohnak could not meet the statutory amount-in-suit requirement. See ECF No. 79; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Since I grant the motion to substitute Jones as class representative in Bohnak’s place, | deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss as academic. Jones shall file her amended complaint within 21 days of the entry of this order, I need not, and will not, provide an advisory opinion concerning the propriety of including Bohnak as a named plaintiff in an amended complaint that has yet to be filed. Bellikoff v, Eaton Vance Corp., 481 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2007). The Clerk of Court shall terminate ECF Nos. 79 and 82.

Dated: February yy 2025 ber C New York, New York ARVIN K. HELLERSTEIN United States District Judge

Bohnak v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Bohnak v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (Bohnak v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related