Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, Hiscox Syndicate 33 v. AmTrust Financial Service, Inc.

S.D. New York

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, Hiscox Syndicate 33 v. AmTrust Financial Service, Inc.

DecidedJuly 29, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-01942

StatusUnknown

This text of Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, Hiscox Syndicate 33 v. AmTrust Financial Service, Inc. (Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, Hiscox Syndicate 33 v. AmTrust Financial Service, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, Hiscox Syndicate 33 v. AmTrust Financial Service, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON, HISCOX SYNDICATE 33, 21-CV-1942 (SHS) Plaintiff, ORDER v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant. SIDNEY H. STEIN, U.S. District Judge. On March 5, 2021, plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Hiscox Syndicate 33 filed this action against defendant AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. (ECF No. 1.) On April 21, 2021, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London subscribing to Policy Nos. B0507 N17FA23160 and B0507 N17FA24460, Forge Underwriting Ltd., and PartnerRe Ireland Insurance dac (collectively, the “Proposed Intervenors”), moved to intervene in this action. (ECF No. 15.) While the Proposed Intervenors’ motion to intervene was pending before this Court, the parties to the action—plaintiff Hiscox and defendant Amtrust—filed a joint stipulation of dismissal of the action with prejudice. (ECF No. 34.) The Court signed that stipulation on July 13. (ECF No. 37.) On July 16, the Proposed Intervenors filed a letter seeking clarification from the Court regarding whether Amtrust should file an Answer to the Proposed Intervenor Complaint, or whether the pending motion to intervene was deemed moot by the dismissal of the original complaint. (ECF No. 38.) A voluntary dismissal terminates the court’s jurisdiction over the action “for the reason that the case has become moot.’” U.S. D.I.D. Corp. v. Windstream Commc’ns, Inc., 775 F.3d 128, 134 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State v. Oneida Cnty., 622 F.2d 624, 629 n.7 (2d Cir. 1980)). Because the sole plaintiff and sole defendant in this case signed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal, the pending motion to intervene is moot. See Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 1-CV-2252, 2016 WL 4269093, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2016). The motion of the Proposed Intervenors to intervene (ECF No. 15) is denied as moot and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this action.

Dated: New York, New York July 29, 2021

S0/ORDERED /. Jl Te HY. STEIN U68.Deds

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 CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON, HISCOX SYNDICATE 33, 21-CV-1942 (SHS) Plaintiff, ORDER v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant. SIDNEY H. STEIN, U.S. District Judge. On March 5, 2021, plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Hiscox Syndicate 33 filed this action against defendant AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. (ECF No. 1.) On April 21, 2021, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London subscribing to Policy Nos. B0507 N17FA23160 and B0507 N17FA24460, Forge Underwriting Ltd., and PartnerRe Ireland Insurance dac (collectively, the “Proposed Intervenors”), moved to intervene in this action. (ECF No. 15.) While the Proposed Intervenors’ motion to intervene was pending before this Court, the parties to the action—plaintiff Hiscox and defendant Amtrust—filed a joint stipulation of dismissal of the action with prejudice. (ECF No. 34.) The Court signed that stipulation on July 13. (ECF No. 37.) On July 16, the Proposed Intervenors filed a letter seeking clarification from the Court regarding whether Amtrust should file an Answer to the Proposed Intervenor Complaint, or whether the pending motion to intervene was deemed moot by the dismissal of the original complaint. (ECF No. 38.) A voluntary dismissal terminates the court’s jurisdiction over the action “for the reason that the case has become moot.’” U.S. D.I.D. Corp. v. Windstream Commc’ns, Inc., 775 F.3d 128, 134 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State v. Oneida Cnty., 622 F.2d 624, 629 n.7 (2d Cir. 1980)). Because the sole plaintiff and sole defendant in this case signed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal, the pending motion to intervene is moot. See Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 1-CV-2252, 2016 WL 4269093, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2016). The motion of the Proposed Intervenors to intervene (ECF No. 15) is denied as moot and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this action.

Dated: New York, New York July 29, 2021

S0/ORDERED /. Jl Te HY. STEIN U68.Deds

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, Hiscox Syndicate 33 v. AmTrust Financial Service, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/certain-underwriters-at-lloyds-london-hiscox-syndicate-33-v-amtrust-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack