In the United States Court of Federal Claims

Nos. 17-1189L, 17-1191L, 17-1194L, 17-1195L, 17-1206L, 17-1215L, 17-1216L

17-1232L, 17-1235L, 17-1277L, 17-1303L, 17-1300L, 17-1332L

Filed: September 30, 2017

**************************************

Y AND J PROPERTIES, LTD., *

individually and on behalf of all other *

persons similarly situated, *

Plaintiffs, *

*

BRYANT BANES, NEVA BANES, *

CARLTON JONES, AND NB RESEARCH, *

INC., on behalf of themselves and others *

similarly situated, *

Plaintiffs, *

*

MATTHEW SALO AND GABRIELA SALO,*

on behalf of themselves and all other similarly *

situated persons and entities, *

Plaintiffs, *

*

ANGELA BOUZERAND, WAYNE *

PESEK, AMY PESEK, AND FRED PAUL *

FRENGER, individually and on behalf of all *

other similarly situated, *

Plaintiffs, *

*

VAL ANTHONY ALDRED, HAGAN *

HAMILTON HEILIGBRODT, WILLIAM *

LANGE KRELL, JR., BEVERLY FECEL *

KRELL, AND SHAWN S. WELLING, *

appearing individually and on behalf of *

all persons similarly situated, *

Plaintiffs, *

*

KENNETH LEE SMITH AND *

CONSTANCE SMITH, *

Plaintiffs, *

*

GARNER TIP STRICKLAND, IV AND *

MEGAN K. STRICKLAND, *

Plaintiffs, *

*

*

*
2

BONNIE CLARK GOMEZ AND *

JORGE L. GOMEZ, *

Plaintiffs, *

*

VIRGINIA MILTON AND ARNOLD *

MILTON, on behalf of themselves and all *

other similarly situated persons, *

 Plaintiffs, *

*

CHRISTINA MICU, and all others *

similarly situated, *

Plaintiffs, *

*

ANTHONY ARRIAGA, et al., *

Plaintiffs, *

*

WAYNE HOLLIS, JR. AND PEGGY *

HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of all *

other similarly situated, *

Plaintiffs, *

*

BASIM MOUSILLI, *

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

Defendant. *

*

**************************************

Michael D. Sydow, The Sydow Firm, Houston, Texas, Counsel for Plaintiff.

Bryant Steven Banes, Neel, Hooper & Banes, PC, Houston, Texas, Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Jay Edelson, Edelson PC, Chicago, Illinois, Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Thomas M. Fulkerson, Fulkerson Lotz LLP, Houston, Texas, Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Douglas Robert Salisbury, Potts Law Firm, LLP, Houston, Texas, Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Christopher Stephen Johns, Johns, Marrs, Ellis & Hodge LLP, Austin, Texas and Houston, 

Texas, Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Eric Reed Nowak, Harrell & Nowak, New Orleans, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Rand P. Nolen, Fleming, Nolen & Jez, L.L.P., Houston, Texas, Counsel for Plaintiffs.
3

Charles W. Irvine, Irvine & Conner, LLC, Houston, Texas, Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Timothy Micah Dortch, Cooper & Scully, PC, Dallas, Texas, Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Clayton A. Clark, Clark, Love & Hutson, G.P., Houston, Texas, Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Howard L. Nations, Nations Law Firm, Houston, Texas, Counsel for Plaintiff.

David Harrington, United States Department of Justice, Environmental and Natural Resources

Division, Washington, D.C., Counsel for the Government.

ORDER

Pursuant to the court’s September 30, 2017 Order, the court will convene a status 

conference on Friday, October 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM (CST) in Courtroom 11-B in the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Texas, 515 Rusk Street, Houston, Texas 77002. 

In preparation for the October 6, 2017 status conference, counsel may want to review the 

attached Orders issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York 

and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in cases related to Hurricane 

Sandy.1 Although those cases did not concern a Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claim, some of 

the procedures adopted therein may be of interest. Counsel should be aware that, unlike the district 

courts, the United States Court of Federal Claims does not have magistrate judges.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Susan G. Braden

SUSAN G. BRADEN

Chief Judge

 

1 For a more complete list of Orders filed in these cases, see In Re Hurricane Sandy Cases 14mc41, UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT – EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/re-hurricane-sandycases-14mc41, and Hurricane Sandy Cases, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT – DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, 

http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/hurricane-sandy-cases. 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

-------------------------------------------------------------)( 

IN RE HURRICANE SANDY CASES 

-------------------------------------------------------------)( 

THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: 

ALL RELATED CASES 

------------~------------------------------------------------)( 

ORDER 

14MC41 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 1 

INTRODUCTION 

On October 29, 2012, the weather event officially designated as Hurricane Sandy made 

landfall in southern New Jersey, causing severe damage to several states along the East Coast from 

Florida to Maine. 1 The storm surge struck New York City, causing property damage in excess of 

$50 billion, leaving many people homeless and without power. 

Currently, more than 800 actions have been filed by property owners in the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of New York against various insurers and more cases are 

expected. The Board of~ Judges has appointed a committee, consisting of three magistrate judges 

(the "Committee"), to recommend procedures to ensure proper case filing and relation practices, to 

establish a plan for expedited discovery, and to facilitate the efficient resolution of these matters in 

a manner designed to avoid duplication of effort and unnecessary expense. Nothing in this Case 

Management Order is intended to slow the resolution of any case. Individual cases that are at an 

advanced stage should not be delayed needlessly as a result of this Order, and counsel are 

encouraged to employ their own resources in attempting to resolve these cases. 

In an effort to explore possible ways in which these matters may be managed more 

1

Hurricane Sandy One Year Later, FEMA, http://www.fema.gov/hurricane-sandy. 

1 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:

 1894
effectively, the Committee requested certain basic data about the pending cases from plaintiffs' 

counsel and obtained written submissions from both plaintiffs' and defendants' counsel setting 

forth their positions on the best ways to organize and streamline case management. On February 5, 

2014, the Committee met with counsel representing all parties to these cases to solicit input and 

suggestions. 

In entering this Case Management Order, the Committee is cognizant of the various 

interests that need to be balanced here. On the one hand, the Court must ensure that victims of the 

storm, many of whom were rendered homeless for a time and who niay be left without the 

necessary records or access to qualified contractors to effect repairs, receive an expeditious review 

of their claims, while at the same time, safeguarding insurers from meritless or inflated claims. As 

the letters filed by counsel demonstrate, however, there is no universal approach that will facilitate 

a speedy and fair resolution to these cases. The Court has taken certain steps to ease the burden and 

expense upon the litigants and the Court. For example, the Court entered consolidated pro hac vice 

orders eliminating the need for out-of-district counsel to file such motions for every case. In 

addition, with the approval of the Board of Judges, the Court enters the following Order: 

I. Appointment of Liaison Counsel 

In order to conduct future case management activities more efficiently, the Committee 

hereby designates Liaison Counsel to assist the Court in coordinating the efforts of all parties. 

A. Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel -The Committee has designated Tracey Rannals Bryan of 

Gauthier Houghtaling & Williams, and Javier Delgado of Merlin Law Group as Plaintiffs' Liaison 

Counsel. Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel shall forward to all plaintiffs' counsel any communication 

that is designated by the Court as non-case specific. 

B. Defendants' Liaison Counsel -The Committee has designated Gerald J. Nielsen of 

2 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:

 1895
Nielsen, Carter & Treas, LLC, and Jared T. Greisman of White Fleischner & Fino, LLP as 

Defendants' Liaison Counsel. Defendants' Liaison Counsel shall forward to all defendants' 

counsel any communication that is designated by the Court as non-case specific. 

II. Misjoinder of Plaintiffs 

As an initial matter, the Committee's review of the cases that have been filed to date has 

revealed that there remain a number of "mass joinder" cases, where plaintiffs joined large groups of 

property holders in one complaint, 2 with the only common factor being that the property owners 

held insurance policies with the same insurance company. The Committee has identified a number 

of these misjoined cases that are listed in Exhibit A attached hereto. Several district judges, sua 

sponte, dismissed similar complaints without prejudice to refiling, based upon their determination 

that the plaintiffs were impermissibly joined. See. e.g., Funk v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 13 CV 5933 

(JS) (GRB) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2013); Dante v. National Flood Ins. Program, No. 13 CV 6297 

(NG) (RER) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2013). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within 14 days of the date ofthis Order, 

counsel shall dismiss all plaintiffs except the first named plaintiff in each misjoined action listed in 

Exhibit A hereto, without prejudice to refiling in accordance with this Order's Case Relation Rule 

set forth below. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 14 days of this Order, the parties shall provide the 

2

In its submission to the Committee, plaintiffs' counsel suggested that not only would it be 

"convenient and efficient" to proceed by joining the plaintiffs in this manner, but that "it would 

also result in a considerable savings to the parties in terms of filing fees." No. 14-MC-41, Entry 

65. This Court has previously ruled that plaintiffs cannot avoid paying statutorily-mandated filing 

fees through improper mass joinder. See In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement 

Cases, Nos. 11 CV 3995, 12 CV 1147, 12 CV 1150, 12 CV 1154, 2012 WL 1570765, at *12-13 

(E.D.N.Y. July 24, 2012), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Patrick Collins. Inc. v. 

Doe 1, 288 F.R.D. 233 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). 

3 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:

 1896
Committee with a list of any additional cases (not listed in Exhibit A) in which plaintiffs continue 

to be joined improperly solely because they share a common defendant, and dismiss all but the first 

named plaintiff in those cases in accordance with this Order. 

Ill. Relation and Consolidation of Cases 

In soliciting filings from counsel, the Committee directed counsel to "file a letter in 

accordance with Local Rule 50.3.1(d) (the "Case Relation Rule"), explaining how counsel proposes 

to group the cases." To date, no attorney has proposed a comprehensive plan for relating the cases 

and several have specifically opposed relation or consolidation of any cases. Notwithstanding these 

positions, the Committee has determined that, based on the information available, one subgroup of 

cases will benefit from relation to a single judicial officer. 

A. Cases Relating to the Same Property 

In a number of instances, multiple cases have been filed relating to the same property, most 

often where the property is insured under separate policies, such as wind and flood damage policies 

("Common Property Cases"). The Committee has compiled a preliminary list of Common Property 

Cases, attached as Exhibit B to this Order. 

Although some counsel have opposed relation or consolidation of the Common Property 

Cases, the Committee, after careful consideration, has determined that there would be a significant 

savings of judicial resources if multiple cases relating to the same property were assigned to the 

same district judge and magistrate judge under the Case Relation Rule. Damages to a particular 

structure, edifice or property may involve common questions of fact which potentially could be 

resolved by joint inspections and experts. Relating the cases that deal with a single property to the 

same judges may also eliminate the risk of inconsistent determinations. 

The Committee makes no recommendation with regard to the question of whether any of 

4 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:

 1897
the Common Property Cases should be otherwise consolidated for purposes of discovery and/or 

trial. That decision will be left to the assigned judges. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within 14 days of the date of this Order, all 

cases relating to the same property, listed in Exhibit B hereto, shall be deemed related under the 

Case Relation Rule, and assigned to the district judge and magistrate judge currently assigned the 

lowest docket nuinber. 3 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 14 days of this Order, the parties shall provide the 

Committee with a list of any other Common Property Cases (not listed in Exhibit B) that should be 

related in accordance with this Order. 

B. Cases Subject to Certain Common Defenses 

Counsel for defendants have identified several state law claims common to many of 

plaintiffs' cases, which defendants contend should be dismissed, including, inter alia, state law 

claims alleging bad faith or negligent claims handling, certain forms of relief, such as punitive 

damages, treble damages, and/or attorneys' fees, and requests for jury trial. A number of district 

judges have already dismissed such claims, finding that the allegations are not viable under New 

York law. See. e.g .. Funk v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 13 CV 5933 (JS) (GRB) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 

2013); Dufficy v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 13 CV 6010 (SJF) (AKT) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 

2013). 

Rather than require each judge to resolve motions to dismiss such claims, plaintiffs are 

ORDERED within 14 days of the Order to voluntarily withdraw such claims, or if not, submit a 

letter to the assigned judge, explaining the legal basis for continuing to pursue such claims in any 

3

Counsel should ensure that when relating cases, the cases are filed in the proper courthouse 

in accordance with the Eastern District Division ofBusiness Rule, Local Rule 50.1(d). 

5 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:

 1898
particular action. 

IV. Uniform Automatic Discovery Practices in Sandy Cases 

The parties generally agree that a uniform, automatic discovery procedure should be 

adopted to speed resolution of these matters while also reducing costs for the parties and the 

burdens on the Court. Counsel advise that, in FEMA cases, insurers are compensated based upon 

the total payout such that as long as damages are properly documented, carriers have an incentive to 

pay. Accordingly, rather than waiting for the Court to schedule a Rule 16 conference, the parties 

are directed to disclose certain information in an expedited manner so that the parties can evaluate 

their respective cases. The following discovery schedule shall control the first phase of discovery 

in Hurricane Sandy cases in lieu ofthe initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26 to avert the need for a Rule 16 conference in these cases and, in the absence of a 

showing to the contrary, the need to serve document requests and interrogatories. 

A. Automatic Disclosures by Plaintiffs 

1. Within 60 days of the date of this Order (or in the case of subsequently filed 

cases, within 60 days of the filing of the Answer) unless such information 

has already been provided or appears on the face of the complaint, plaintiffs 

in all Hurricane Sandy cases shall provide the following information to 

defendants' counsel: 

a the complete name of each insurer and all policy numbers for each 

policy of insurance held by, or potentially benefitting each plaintiff 

and/or property on the date of the loss (including without limitation 

wind, flood, fire or a combination thereof), and all claims numbers 

for any claims made for losses relating to Hurricane Sandy; 

6 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:

 1899
b. the address of each property for which a loss is claimed; 

c. the current address of each plaintiff property owner; 

d. an itemized statement of claimed damages for each property, 

including contents; if the contents claim is no longer in dispute, a 

statement to this effect must be made; 

e. a statement as to whether there have been any amounts paid or 

offered to be paid under the policy, and if so, the difference claimed 

in this suit, including an itemization of those items for which plaintiff 

is making a claim of underpayment and any supporting 

documentation; 

f. if no payments have been made or offered, a statement of the reasons 

provided by defendant; 

g. whether there have been any prior attempts at arbitration or 

mediation; and 

h. identify any other Hurricane Sandy related lawsuits filed or 

contemplated for that particular property or plaintiff. 

2. Within 60 days of this Order (or in the case of subsequently filed cases, 

within 60 days of the filing of the Answer), plaintiffs shall produce to 

defendants' counsel the following documents: 

a. all documents supporting or evidencing the claimed loss, including 

loss estimates from other insurers, any adjuster's reports, engineering 

reports, contractor's reports or estimates; photographs, claim log 

notes, documents relating to repair work performed after Hurricane 

Sandy, including contracts, bids, estimates, invoices or work tickets 

7 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:

 1900
for completed work; 

b. all documents reflecting any payments received to date from any 

insurer, FEMA, or from any other governmental program federal, 

state or local; 

c. with respect to flood damage claims, all documents relied upon by 

plaintiff as satisfying Proof of Loss requirements and documentation 

required by SFIP 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App.A(l), Art. Vll(J)(3),(4); 

d. any written communications exchanged between the insured or 

insurer relative to the claimed loss, including any proof of loss 

required by the applicable policy. 

B. Automatic Disclosure by Defendants 

1. Within 60 days of the date of this Order (or in the case of subsequently filed 

cases, within 60 days of the filing of the Answer), defendants in all 

Hurricane Sandy cases shall provide the following information to plaintiffs: 

a. if no payment on the policy has been made or offered, an explanation 

for the declination of coverage, including but not limited to: 

1. any policy exclusions that apply; 

n. whether coverage is denied due to non-payment of premiums; 

m. ifthere is a dispute as to the nature of the damage incurred 

and its coverage under the policy; 

1v. if there is a dispute as to the value of the claimed losses, and 

v. any other legal basis on which coverage has been denied. 

b. if payment on the policy has been made or offered, defendant's 

understanding of the nature of the dispute; 

8 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:

 1901
c. whether mediation or arbitration has been attempted in the case. 

2. Within the same 60.-day period, defendants are ORDERED to provide the 

following documents and information to plaintiffs' counsel: 

a. all non-privileged documents contained in the claims file pertaining 

to the subject policy, including any letters of declination of coverage 

and notices of nonpayment of premiums; 

b. any documentation relating to an assessment of the claimed loss, 

including all loss reports and damage assessments, adjuster's reports, 

engineering reports, contractor's reports, photographs taken of the 

damage or claimed losses, and any other evaluations of the claim; 

c. the names and addresses of the adjusters for each claim; 

d. all claim log notes; 

e. records of payments made to the insured pursuant to the policy; 

f. all expert reports and/or written communications that contain any 

description or analysis of the scope of loss or any defenses under the 

policy. 

Nothing in this Order shall be construed to limit the information to be exchanged in any 

particular case. Counsel for each party is encouraged and expected to provide any information that 

would reasonably be helpful to their adversary in evaluating the case for mediation/arbitration 

purposes. Any information not exchanged during this period cannot be used in the 

mediation/arbitration process. The parties are strongly urged to meet and confer in good faith on 

the exchange of information. 

9 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:

 1902
C. Privilege 

A party shall produce a privilege log for those documents that it is not producing on the 

basis of privilege 14 days prior to the completion of the production described in Section IV above. 

The log should include the author of the document, the recipient of the document, the date of the 

document, and the nature of the privilege asserted. 

Documents for which a privilege is properly asserted include communications between 

counsel and client, documents created in anticipation of litigation, communications between or 

among plaintiffs' counsel, and communications between or among non-insurer defendants' 

counsel, insurer defendants' counsel and their respective clients. Documents routinely prepared in 

the ordinary course of business, including but not limited to adjusters' reports and other expert 

analyses, including draft reports, are not privileged and should be produced. 

V. Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Within 14 days of the completion of the expedited discovery procedure outlined above, the 

parties are Ordered to submit a Notice of Arbitration in accordance with Local Rule 83.7 in the 

form attached hereto as Exhibit C, or in the alternative, the parties may submit a stipulation in the 

form attached as Exhibit D, consenting to mediation. All arbitrations and mediations are to be 

concluded within three months of submission of the Notice of Arbitration or Consent to Mediation. 

Mediation may, at the discretion of the Court, be conducted by a magistrate judge rather than a 

mediator. Cases that are not resolved through arbitration, mediation, or voluntary settlement will 

be returned to the assigned district judge and magistrate judge for trial. 

Within 14 days ofthe date ofthis Order, Defendants' Liaison Counsel is Ordered to confer 

with defendants' counsel and provide the Committee with a list of commonly occurring legal issues 

and defenses that defendants anticipate, from experience, may arise in a number of these cases, 

10 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:

 1903
along with relevant case law or other authority addressing these issues. 

Within 7 days thereafter, Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel is Ordered to confer with plaintiffs' 

counsel and provide the Committee with any contrary legal authority addressing the issues and 

defenses identified by Defendants' Liaison Counsel, and provide the Committee with any other 

issues that plaintiffs anticipate may arise in these cases. 

While the ultimate determination of any such legal issue or defense may well be fact driven, 

and the outcome of any legal defense or issue will be determined by the individual judge assigned 

to each case, the Committee seeks this information in order to educate and fully prepare our 

mediators and arbitrators with the hope of expediting the settlement process. These submissions 

are intended to be summary in nature and may be made by letter; they are not intended to be full 

briefs on the issues. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: Brooklyn, New York 

February 21, 2014 

11 

IS/ CHERYL L. POLLAK 

Cheryl L. Pollak 

United States Magistrate Judge 

IS/ GARYR. BROWN 

Gary R. Brown 

United States Magistrate Judge 

IS/ RAMON E. REYES. JR. 

Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:

 1904
Docket No. 

13-5967 (DLI) (VMS) 

13-5972 (PKC) (LB) 

13-6008 (PKC) (RML) 

13-6009 (CBA) (JMA) 

13-6792 (ARR) (RER) 

13-6873 (NGG) (JMA) 

13-6876 (JS) (ARL) 

13-7209 (ERK) (VVP) 

13-5956 (BMC) (RML) 

13-5962 (KAM) (RLM) 

14-23 (JG) (VMS) 

14-24 (ENV) (MDG) 

13-6001 (ADS) (ARL) 

13-6013 (JFB) (ARL) 

13-6022 (JFB) (WDW) 

13-6273 (LDW) (WDW) 

13-5923 (ADS) (AKT) 

14-110 (JS) (AKT) 

Exhibit A 

List of Misjoined Cases by Docket Number1 

1

This list was compiled from the spread sheet provided by plaintiffs to the court as of 

January 31, 2014 and may not reflect certain reassignments that may have occurred since that 

date. 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:

 1905
Exhibit B 

List of Related Cases1

• 

Plaintiff Property Defendants Docket Nos. 

Israel 10 Suffolk Walk Allstate 13-6686 {KAM, JO) 

Occidental Fire 14-23 (JG, VMS) 

Wade 100 East Hudson Nationwide 13-7000 (SJF, ARL) 

Hartford N/A 

Maiorana 107 Cuba Ave. Standard Fire 13-6926 (WFK, RER) 

Occidental 14-25 (DLI, CLP) 

Halligan 11 Graham Pl. FEMA 13-6596 (FB, MDG) 

Charter Oak 13-6013 (JFB, ARL) 

Thomson 111 Hett Ave. Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Standard Fire 13-6934 (RRM, CLP) 

Little 115 Oceanside Ave. Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

FEMA 13-6603 (PKC, RML) 

Buckley 12Y2 Neptune Walk American Bankers 13-6291 (JG, JMA) 

Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Faulkener 125 Bedford Ave. Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Selective Ins. 14-170 (JFB, AKT) 

Mastey 13008 Cronston Ave Allstate 13-6698 (FJ, RER) 

Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

1

This list was compiled from the spread sheet provided by plaintiffs to the court as of 

January 31, 2014 and may not reflect certain reassignments that may have occurred since that 

date. 

·To the extent that docket numbers on this list, including but not limited to 13-5914, 13-

5964, 13-5968, 13-6291, 13-6818, 13-5995, and 13-7073, had misjoined plaintiffs as of January 

31, 2014, and thereafter plaintiffs on those dockets were terminated and refiled under new docket 

numbers, counsel should ascertain that the newly filed cases have been properly related to any 

other cases relating to the same property. 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:

 1906
Fugelsang 14 Ocean Ave. FEMA 13-6373 (JG, VMS) 

Univ.No.Am. 13-7209 (ERK, VVP) 

Erber 143-01 Rockaway Bch FEMA 13-6592 (ILG, SMG) 

Occidental 13-6008 (PKC, RML) 

Baldeo 1431 Pearl St. FEMA 13-6579 (ERK, CLP) 

Occidental 13-6008 (PKC, RML) 

Sears 156 Reid St American Bankers 13-6291{]0, JMA) 

Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

McDonnell 157 Blackheath Rd Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Standard Fire 13-6891 (ADS, ORB) 

Arnell a 16 Sutton Pl. Farmington Cas. 14-190 (LDW, AKT) 

Travelers N/A 

Moran 17 Deal Rd FEMA 13-6587 (ADS, AKT) 

Liberty Mutual 13-7301 (NGG, JO) 

Ryan 172 Reid Ave .. Foremost Mutual 13-5961 (DLI, RML) 

FEMA 13-6611 (JG, RLM) 

Beaumont 174 Coronodo St · Wright Nsl Flood N/A 

Ocean Harbor 13-7073 (SJF, AKT) 

Gallagher 17 5 Beach 128th St Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Am. Bankers 13-6291 (JG, JMA) 

Ruggiero 178 Beach 133rd St Auto Ins. of Hartford 13-5962 (KAM,RLM) 

Liberty Mut. 13-7313(RRM,MDG) 

Bennett 18 Beach 221 st St Liberty Mut. 13-6818 {KAM, CLP) 

Liberty Mut. Fire 13-7302 (WFK,RML) 

Connors 180 Beach 123rd St Ocean Harbor 13-7102 (DLI, JO) 

Allstate 13-6656 (FB, RML) 

Downs 19 Doris Lane Liberty Mut. Fire 13-5957 (CBA, CLP) 

First Liberty 13-6792 (ARR, RER) 

McGovern 2Beach 219th St Standard Fire 13-7019 (NG, JO) 

Occidental Fire 14-23 (JG, VMS) 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:

 1907
Cloos 203 Bayside Ave. Wright N/A 

Universal N.Am. 13-7242 (WFK,RLM) 

Hadef 203 Beach 149th St. Occidental Fire 14-24 (ENV, MDG) 

Allstate N/A 

Phillips 208 E. 8th Rd Liberty Mut. 13-7111 (LDW,GRB) 

Liberty Mut. N/A 

Wernick 210 Sportsman Ave. FEMA 13-6590 (JFB, WDW) 

Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Farr 21415 12th Ave. Occidental Fire 14-23 (JG, VMS) 

214-215 12th Ave. Standard Fire 13-6981 (SLT, JO) 

Mellett 215 Beach 142d St Amer. Bankers 14-142 {MKB, RER) 

Narragansett 13-5968 {FB, VMS) 

Washington 21620 Rockaway Point Amer. Bankers 14-208 {MKB, VVP) 

Narragansett 13-5968 {FB, VMS) 

Leiner 23 7 Beach 118th St Everest Nsl 13-5975 {DLI, RLM) 

Hartford Ins. N/A 

Ramey 24 Michigan St Wright N/A 

Fireman's Fund 13-5978 (JFB, WDW) 

Stapleton 251 W. Fulton St Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Wright N/A 

Arnell a 2525 Cedar St Auto Ins. of Hartford 14-110 (JS, AKT) 

Travelers N/A 

Ferner 2653 Hewlett Lane Allstate 13-6767 (JFB, AKT) 

Standard Fire 13-6904 (LDW,AKT) 

Mingino 310 Beach 142 St Farmington Cas. 13-5923 (ADS, AKT) 

Standard Fire 13-7024 {RRM, RER) 

Szajt 310 E. Shore Dr. Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Allstate 13-6737 (LDW,AKT) 

Fields 333 Beach 40th St Stillwater 13-6994 (ILG, RLM) 

Wright N/A 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:

 1908
Memi 335 Beach I 45th St Nationwide Mut. Fire 13-6001(ADS, ARL) 

Nationwide Prop & Cas. 13-6009 (CBA, JMA) 

Curtis 336 Beach I 48th St Allstate 13-6712 (BMC, VVP) 

Occidental 13-6008 (PKC, RML) 

McKinney 36 Janet Lane Allstate 13-6702 (SLT, VVP) 

Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Febrizio 365 W. Pine Wright N/A 

Stillwater 13-6999 (LDW,AKT) 

Hamlet 378 West Pine Great Lakes Reins. 13-5941 (SJF, ORB) 

Wright N/A 

Murphy 413 Beach 134th St FEMA 13-6606 (SLT, LB) 

Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

420 Tenants 420 Shore Rd Standard Fire 13-5909 (JFB, ORB) 

CHUBB 14-10 (JS, WDW) 

Orzegorski 426 Beach I 38th St Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Standard Fire 13-6984(RRM,MDO) 

McDonnell 440 Beach 134th St American Security 14-133 (ARR, RLM) 

First Liberty 13-6792 (ARR, RER) 

Rudden 454 Beach 124th St Standard Fire 13-6897 (JFB, ARL) 

Universal No. Am 13-7209 (ERK, VVP) 

Lindon 457 Beach I 24th St Liberty Mut. Fire 13-7312 (FB, RML) 

Liberty Mut. Fire 13-6873 (NOO, JMA) 

Mastey 457 Beach I 45th St Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Standard Fire 13-7010 (RRM, CLP) 

LaConti 463 E. Penn St. Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Wright N/A 

King 487 A Seabreeze Walk Standard Fire 13-6951 (SLT, RER) 

Farmington Cas. 13-5923 (ADS, AKT) 

Corbett 51 Waterford Rd Liberty Mut. Fire 13-6022 (JFB, WDW) 

American Security 14-124 (SJF, ORB) 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:

 1909
Rayner 52 California St Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Hartford of Midwest 14-173 (SJF, WDW) 

Schlossberg 522 East Fulton St Nationwide Mut. Fire 13-6001 (ADS, ARL) 

Nationwide Mut. Fire 13-7281 (JS, WDW) 

Velez 53 Howard Ave. Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Wright NIA 

Whelan 541Beach 129th St N aragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Standard Fire 13-6973 (JG, MDG) 

Courtney 547Beach 127th St Standard Fire 13-6959 (DLI, RLM) 

Universal No. Arne 13-7209 (ERK, VVP) 

Jackson 551 So Ocean Ave. Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

American Security 14-121 (JS, AKT) 

Mason 561 Beach 67th St Allstate 13-7013 (PKC,MDG) 

American Security 13-6884 (ERK,MDG) 

Fed. Emerg. Mgmt. 14-30 (KAM, SMG) 

Fraser 561 W. Bay Drive Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

FEMA 13-6580 (JFB, ORB) 

Wheellock 569 West Park Ave. Merrimack Mut. 13-5981 (JFB, ARL) 

Fidelity 13-7004 (ADS, ARL) 

Demic 60 Ocean Ave. Allstate 13-6663 (NG, JO) 

Liberty Mut. 13-6873 (NGG, JMA) 

Peterson 618 Beach 66th St Nationwide 13-6009 (CBA, JMA) 

Underwriters at Lloyds 13-7306 (MKB,MDG) 

Wolken 68 W. 18thRd Safeco Ins. 13-5967 (DLI, VMS) 

Metro. Prop. & Cas. 13-6273 (LDW,AKT) 

Kyne 683 Highland Pl. Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

American Bankers 13-6291 (JG, JMA) 

7001 E.71st LLP 7001E.71 St Continental Cas. 13-638 (RJD, SMG) 

Chubb 13-2898{MKB,MDG) 

State court Kings Cty 506259/2013 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:

 1910
Mussman 77 Oregon St Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Standard Fire 13-6911 (ADS, ORB) 

Quinn 8 Hastings Rd Wright N/A 

Charter Oak Fire 13-6013 (JFB, ARL) 

Dolan 804 Bayside Safeco 13-5967 (DLI, VMS) 

Standard Fire 13-6974 (NO, JO) 

Salle 81 Buffalo Ave. Allstate 13-6020 (SJF, ORB) 

Allstate 13-6016 (ADS, ORB) 

Brenner 849 Ocean Front Hartford Ins. Midwest 14-126 (JS, ARL) 

Hartford Ins. Midwest 13-5924 (JS, WDW) 

McKnight 85 Ohio Ave. Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Wright NIA 

Hernandez 85 Pearsall St Fidelity & Deposit 13-6906 (NOO, VVP) 

FEMA 13-6599 (ARR, RER) 

Hommel 905 West Park Ave. Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Wright NIA 

Badamo 910 Lanark Rd Amer. Security 13-5964 (DLI, VVP) 

FEMA 13-6575 (JO, MDO) 

First Liberty 13-6792 (ARR, RER) 

Fox 95 Penna. Ave. Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Standard Fire 13-6905 (JS, ARL) 

Campbell 979 Bayside Oenl Cas. of Wise. 13-7263 (NGG, JO) 

FEMA 14-154 (RID, CLP) 

Outtueri 1212 Cross Bay Blvd. Liberty Mutual 13-6818 (KAM, CLP) 

Liberty Mutual Fire 13-7393 (WKF, JMA) 

Duggen 20409 1Oth Ave Occidental 13-6008 (PKC, RML) 

Standard Fire 13-7022 (FB, CLP) 

Carey 130 Beach 128th St. First Liberty 13-5946 (NO, MDO) 

133-06 Rockaway Beach Blvd. Narragansett 13-5968 (FB, VMS) 

Nicasio 109-20 Rockaway Beach Blvd. Wright N/A 

Wright NIA 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:

 1911
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

Exhibit C 

-------------------------------------------------------------)( 

IN RE HURRICANE SANDY CASES 

-------------------------------------------------------------)( 

THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: 

-------------------------------------------------------------)( 

14MC41 

NOTICE DESIGNATING CASE TO COURT ANNE)(ED ARBITRATION 

This case has been designated to participate in the Court Annexed Arbitration Program 

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.7(d) wherein money damages only are being sought. 

After the exchange of the first phase of discovery in Hurricane Sandy cases as mandated 

by Case Management Order No. 1, an arbitration hearing will be set. The Arbitrator shall be 

selected from the Court's Panel of Arbitrators. Instructions will be provided when a hearing date 

has been set. It is not anticipated that matters selected for Arbitration will require discovery 

directions. If a dispute arises which requires a ruling on a question related to discovery, you must 

move promptly before the assigned magistrate judge, unless otherwise directed by the Court. 

Attorneys cannot adjourn or change the arbitration hearing date without approval from the Court. 

Requests to Adjourn an Arbitration Hearing: Must be filed as a motion via ECF to the 

assigned district judge or magistrate judge. 

Telephone calls to request adjournment of an Arbitration hearing will not be 

considered. Counsel and pro se litigants should provide the Court with an email address 

for notification purposes. 

You may refer to the. Local Civil Rules for Arbitration of the U.S. District Court, Eastern 

District ofNew York on our web site, www.nyed.uscourts.gov/adr. 

Dated: 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:

 1912
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

Exhibit D 

-------------------------------------------------------------)( 

IN RE HURRICANE SANDY CASES 

-------------------------------------------------------------)( 

THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: 

-------------------------------------------------------------)( 

14MC 41 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the undersigned parties: 

1. The parties agree to submit their dispute to mediation in lieu of arbitration. 

2. No party shall be bound by anything said or done during the Mediation, unless either a 

written and signed stipulation is entered into or the parties enter into a written and signed 

agreement. 

3. The Mediator may meet in private conference with less than all of the parties. 

4. Information obtained by the Mediator, either in written or oral form, shall be confidential 

and shall not be revealed by the Mediator unless and until the party who provided that 

information agrees to its disclosure. 

5. The Mediator shall not, without the prior written consent of both parties, disclose to the 

Court any matters which are disclosed to him or her by either of the parties or any matters 

which otherwise relate to the Mediation. 

6. The mediation process shall be considered a settlement negotiation for the purpose of all 

federal and state rules protecting disclosures made during such conferences from later 

discovery or use in evidence. The entire procedure shall be confidential, and no 

stenographic or other record shall be made except to memorialize a settlement record. 

All communications, oral or written, made during the Mediation by any party or a party's 

agent, employee, or attorney are confidential and, where appropriate, are to be considered 

work product and privileged. Such communications, statements, promises, offers, views 

and opinions shall not be subject to any discovery or admissible for any purpose, 

including impeachment, in any litigation or other proceeding involving the parties. 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:

 1913
Provided, however, that evidence otherwise subject to discovery or admissible is not 

excluded from discovery or admission in evidence simply as a result of it having been 

used in connection with this mediation process. 

7. The Mediator and his or her agents shall have the same immunity as judges and court 

employees have under Federal law and the common law from liability for any act or 

omission in connection with the Mediation, and from compulsory process to testify or 

produce documents in connection with the Mediation. 

8. The parties (i) shall not call or subpoena the Mediator as a witness or expert in any 

proceeding relating to: the Mediation, the subject matter of the Mediation, or any 

thoughts or impressions which the Mediator may have about the parties in the Mediation, 

and (ii) shall not subpoena any notes, documents or other material prepared by the 

Mediator in the course of or in connection with the Mediation, and (iii) shall not offer 

into evidence any statements, views or opinions of the Mediator. 

9. The Mediator's services have been made available to the parties through the dispute 

resolution procedures sponsored by the Court. In accordance with those procedures, the 

Mediator ' represents that he has taken the oath prescribed by 28 U.S.C. 453. 

10. Any party to this Stipulation is required to attend at least one session and as many 

sessions thereafter as may be helpful in resolving this dispute. 

11. An individual with final authority to settle the matter and to bind the party shall attend the 

Mediation on behalf of each party. 

Dated: -------

Plaintiff Defendant 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant 

Consented to:----------

Mediator 

Case 1:14-mc-00041-CLP-GRB-RER Document 243 Filed 02/21/14 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:

 1914
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

IN RE: 

HURRICANE SANDY CASES STANDING ORDER NO. 14-2 

There are presently pending in the District of New Jersey 

more than 600 civil cases arising out of Hurricane Sandy,1

 and 

concerning standard flood insurance policies issued pursuant to 

the National Flood Insurance Act (“NFIA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4001-

4084. The Court conducted a Public Hearing on March 6, 2014 and 

reviewed the submissions by a number of counsel concerning the 

case management of these actions. The Court hereby adopts a 

Hurricane Sandy Case Management Order (“HSCMO”) to govern all 

Hurricane Sandy cases involving standard flood insurance 

policies sold and administered by participating Write Your Own 

(“WYO”) Program insurance companies in accordance with the 

National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”), a Federal insurance 

program administered by the Federal Management Agency (“FEMA”) 

pursuant to the NFIA (“WYO actions”), in addition to direct 

claims against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) 

under the NFIA (“direct suit”). 

                                                            

1 The Court utilizes the term “Hurricane Sandy” for the October 

2012 storm; however, the Court makes no finding with respect to 

the precise meteorological categorization of the storm. 
2 

 The HSCMO reflects the Court’s commitment to 

resolving these cases promptly, fairly, and efficiently, with a 

median time from filing to disposition of six (6) months, which 

coincides with the District of New Jersey’s overall pace for all 

civil cases on its docket. All counsel and parties shall 

cooperate with one another and with the Court to achieve this 

objective. 

The HSCMO shall be entered in each NFIP and direct 

suit action upon the filing of an answer, and shall supersede 

all prior scheduling orders in the NFIP and/or direct suit 

cases. Parties may seek an exemption from the application of 

the HSCMO by way of informal letter application to the 

Magistrate Judge, setting forth, with specificity, good cause to 

warrant the requested exemption, and stating whether the 

adversary consents to the requested exemption. In the event an 

individual action sets forth claims for damages caused by 

sources other than flooding (to include, without limitation, 

wind, fire, or any combination thereof), but pertaining to the 

same property, the cases shall be reassigned to the same 

District Judge and Magistrate Judge and consolidated for 

discovery purposes, as set forth in the HSCMO. 

Consequently, upon the Court’s own motion and with 

approval of the Board of Judges of the United States District 

Court for the District of New Jersey, 
U

hi

HU)HU

H

0

UFt

0h-hU)

UhihiH

C)UUU

U)UU

U)

U)

U)

0U)HU)

U)

C)0cCU)H

Ui Ft U)

H

U

0

U U)HUU hi

U)

U

Ft

Ft

U

U

U

U)

H

U)

U

U)

U

U) h) U)

U

H U)

L. hi

Ui U)

U

U

U Ft FtU H0 Ft Ft

HU

Ft

H

0

HU U)

H

H- Ft

J

U

Ft

Ho

U U)

U U) U)

U U)

U

H- Ft

Ft FtH0U

00U) Ft hi

0

U

Ft

U U)U) HUU hi Fthi

U HU 1) 0

U Ft

U

o UU Ft

0Ft U) U)U Ft

o H0Ft

0 - U) U)

H

‘-3Hcj)

0

‘-3H

C’)

0 U) HO

FtH

00U)

U)

H

U)HCc

U)U)FtU)H

U)FtC)H

C) cCU)U)

0txI

FtU)U

FtFtU)U

U)Uhi

hiH -0

UUU

U)CiUU)

U)

C)

UU)(CU)UU

U

H

U

UU

Ft0hiU)U

hi
Exhibit A 

HURRICANE SANDY CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 1 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. Applicability of the HSCMO 

2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 

3. Automatic Dismissals of Certain Claims 

4. Automatic Discovery Procedure 

5. Statements of Contentions 

6. Additional Written Discovery 

7. Depositions of Fact Witnesses 

8. Motions to Amend 

9. Expert Witnesses 

10. Discovery Motions 

11. Extensions of Time 

12. Initial Case Management Conference 

13. Dispositive Motions 

14. Alternative Dispute Resolution 

15. Joint Final Pretrial Orders 

16. Notice and Opportunity to Inspect 

17. Discovery Confidentiality Orders 

18. Motions to Appear pro hac vice

19. Telephonic Appearances 

20. Liaison Counsel 

21. Consolidation with other Hurricane Sandy cases 

1. Applicability of the HSCMO 

This Hurricane Sandy Case Management Order No. 1 

(“HSCMO”) governs all Hurricane Sandy cases involving standard 

flood insurance policies sold and administered by participating 

Write Your Own (“WYO”) Program insurance companies in accordance 

with the National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”), a Federal 

insurance program administered by the Federal Management Agency 

(“FEMA”) pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act (“NFIA”), 

42 U.S.C. §§ 4001-4084 (“WYO action”), in addition to direct 

claims against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) 

pursuant to the NFIA (“direct suit”). The HSCMO shall supersede 

all prior orders concerning NFIP and/or direct suit actions. If 

a party requests to be exempted from the application of the 

HSCMO, the party shall submit an informal letter application to 

the Magistrate Judge within fourteen (14) days of entry of the 
2 

HSCMO, setting forth, with specificity, good cause to warrant 

the requested exemption, and a statement of whether the 

adversary consents to the requested exemption. The HSCMO shall 

govern the action unless otherwise ordered by the Court. In the 

event an individual action sets forth claims for damages caused 

by sources other than flooding (to include, without limitation, 

wind, fire, or any combination thereof), but pertaining to the 

same property, the cases shall be reassigned to the same 

District Judge and Magistrate Judge and consolidated for 

discovery purposes, as set forth in the HSCMO. 

2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 

The HSCMO constitutes the scheduling order 

contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), in order 

to ensure “the just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of each 

NFIP and direct suit action in accordance with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 1, and in recognition of the Court’s commitment 

to the prompt, fair, and efficient resolution of these actions. 

3. Automatic Dismissals of Certain Claims 

a. The following claims are hereby dismissed from 

any WYO action or direct suit: 

i. Jury demands, see Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 

156, 160-61 (1981) (noting that, “[i]t has 

long been settled that the Seventh Amendment 

right to trial by jury does not apply in 

actions against the Federal Government”); Van 

Holt v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 163 F.3d 

161, 165-67 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting that, “only 

FEMA bears the risk” of standard flood 

insurance policies issued by WYO companies and 

that “a lawsuit against a WYO company is 

[therefore], in reality, a suit against” the 

federal government because “the United States 

treasury funds [ultimately] pay off the 

insureds’ claims”); Robinson v. Nationwide 

Mut. Ins. Co., No. 12-5065, 2013 WL 686352, at 

*6 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2013) (finding “no 

Constitutional right to a jury trial” for 

plaintiffs’ WYO claims); 

ii. State law claims, see C.E.R. 1988, Inc. v. 

Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 386 F.3d 263, 268 (3d 

Cir. 2004) (noting that “state-law claims are 
3 

preempted by the NFIA” whether contractual in 

nature or “‘sounding in tort[,]’ but 

‘intimately related to the disallowance of 

[an] insurance claim”) (citing Van Holt, 163 

F.3d 161, 167); 

iii. Punitive damages claims, see Messa v. Omaha 

Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 122 F. Supp. 2d 513, 

522-23 (D.N.J. 2000) (dismissing plaintiffs’ 

“extra-contractual” punitive damages claim 

“because federal law does not provide for” 

such remedies in NFIP cases); 3608 Sounds Ave. 

Condo. Ass’n v. S.C. Ins. Co., 58 F. Supp. 2d 

499, 503 (D.N.J. 1999) (finding plaintiff’s 

state “common law claims of punitive damages 

and attorney’s fees” not cognizable in suits 

“brought pursuant to the NFIA”); Dudick v. 

Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 06-1768, 

2007 WL 984459, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2007) 

(dismissing plaintiff’s punitive damage claims 

because such claims “contravene the National 

Flood Insurance Program’s purpose of reducing 

fiscal pressure on federal flood relief 

efforts”) 

b. The following parties are hereby dismissed from 

any WYO action: 

i. FEMA; and/or 

ii. Directors and/or officers of FEMA. 

c. The following parties are hereby dismissed from 

any direct suit: 

i. Officers and/or directors of FEMA. 

d. Any counsel seeking to reinstate any such 

dismissed claims must file within thirty (30) 

days from the entry of the HSCMO a letter request 

to the Magistrate Judge for reinstatement. Any 

request to reinstate the dismissed claims shall 

set forth the specific legal basis for the 

requested relief (including, without limitation, 

all jurisdictional issues) with citations to 

relevant authority. The adversary shall 

thereafter have seven (7) days to file 

opposition. 
4 

4. Automatic Discovery Procedure2

In recognition of the issues generally implicated in 

NFIP and direct suit actions, the Court shall require the 

automatic disclosure of certain information in an expedited 

manner. This requirement is intended to facilitate the necessary 

evaluation of each action prior to the Court’s initial case 

management conference. The following discovery protocol shall 

therefore govern the initial phase of discovery in lieu of the 

initial disclosures set forth by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(a). 

 

The discovery protocol generally requires that all 

pretrial discovery be completed within one hundred and twenty 

(120) days from entry of the HSCMO. The Hurricane Sandy Case 

Management Discovery Schedule, available on the Court’s website 

for Hurricane Sandy litigation, generally summarizes the time 

frames within which the parties shall exchange, produce, and/or 

conduct necessary discovery. 

 

Nothing in the HSCMO, however, shall be construed to 

preclude a party from exchanging additional information that a 

party reasonably considers to be helpful in evaluating the legal 

and factual contentions at issue in the litigation. 

Each party must simultaneously serve Automatic 

Disclosures as set forth herein within thirty (30) days from 

entry of the HSCMO. Counsel should not file these Automatic 

Disclosures on the CM/ECF system. 

a. Automatic Disclosures by the Plaintiff: 

i. Plaintiff shall provide the following 

disclosures with respect to each property set 

forth in the Complaint: 

                                                            

2

 The Court notes that the Eastern District of New York entered a 

Case Management Order concerning certain litigation arising out 

of Hurricane Sandy. In re Hurricane Sandy Cases, 14-mc-41, Case 

Management Order No. 1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2014), available at

https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/generalordes/14mc41cmo01.pdf. The Court adopted in part the Eastern 

District of New York’s Case Management Order in the Court’s Case 

Management Order No. 1, particularly with respect to Automatic 

Disclosures. 
5 

1. The current address of each plaintiff 

property owner; 

2. The address of each affected property; 

3. The name of each insurer and all policy 

numbers for each insurance policy held 

by or potentially benefitting plaintiff 

and/or the property on the date of the 

loss, including relevant claim numbers 

for any claims; 

4. A detailed itemized statement of 

claimed damages, including content 

claims if in dispute; 

5. A statement of any amounts paid or 

offered to be paid under the policy and 

a detailed itemization of those items 

for which plaintiff claims underpayment 

with citation to the supporting 

documentation; 

6. In the event of nonpayment, the basis 

upon which defendant denied coverage; 

7. A statement setting forth prior 

attempts at arbitration or mediation, 

if any; and 

8. The identification of any other 

Hurricane Sandy related lawsuits filed 

or contemplated for that particular 

property or plaintiff. 

ii. Plaintiff shall provide the following 

documents with respect to each property set 

forth in the Complaint: 

1. All documents supporting or evidencing 

the claimed loss, including, without 

limitation, loss estimates from other 

insurers, any adjuster’s reports, 

engineering reports, contractor’s 

reports or estimates; photographs, 

claim log notes, and any other 
6 

documents relating to repair work 

performed as a result of Hurricane 

Sandy, including contracts, bids, 

estimates, invoices or work tickets for 

completed work repair documentation at 

issue; 

2. All documents reflecting any payments 

received to date from any insurer, 

FEMA, or from any other federal, state, 

or local governmental program 

including, without limitation, the 

United States Small Business 

Association; 

3. All documents relied upon by plaintiff 

in accordance with the applicable proof 

of loss requirements and documents 

required by the standard flood 

insurance policy, including documents 

relied upon by plaintiff to satisfy the 

detailed line item documentation 

requirement of the standard flood 

insurance policy; 

4. Any written communications exchanged 

between the insured or insurer 

concerning the claimed loss; and 

5. To the extent in plaintiff’s custody, 

control, or possession, the entire 

nonprivileged file of any expert, 

estimator or contractor hired by the 

plaintiff or counsel to inspect the 

property and/or render a report, 

estimate, or opinion. 

b. Automatic Disclosures by Defendant: 

i. Defendant shall provide the following 

disclosures with respect to each property set 

forth in the Complaint: 

1. In the event no payment on the policy 

has been made and/or offered, an 

explanation or statement setting forth 

the grounds for declination of 
7 

coverage, including, without 

limitation: 

a. Any applicable policy exclusions; 

b. Whether non-payment of premiums 

resulted in the denial of 

coverage; 

c. Whether the dispute and/or 

declination concerns the nature of 

the damage incurred and its 

coverage under the policy; 

d. Whether the dispute and/or 

declination concerns the value of 

the claimed losses; and 

e. Whether the dispute and/or 

declination concerns any other 

legal basis; 

2. In the event payment on the policy has 

been made and/or offered, defendant’s 

position concerning the remaining 

amount of loss disputed; and 

3. A statement setting forth prior 

attempts at arbitration or mediation, 

if any. 

ii. Defendant shall provide the following 

documents with respect to each property set 

forth in the Complaint: 

1. All non-privileged documents contained 

in the claims file concerning the 

policy, including any declination 

letters and notices of nonpayment of 

premiums; 

2. Any documentation relating to an 

assessment of the claimed loss, 

including all loss reports and damage 

assessments, adjuster’s reports, 

engineering reports, contractor’s 

reports, photographs taken of the 
8 

damage or claimed losses, and any other 

evaluations of the claim; 

3. The names and addresses of the 

adjusters for each claim; 

4. All claim log notes; 

5. Records of payments made to the insured 

pursuant to the policy; 

6. All expert reports and/or written 

communications that contain any 

description or analysis of the scope of 

loss or any defenses under the policy; 

7. All emails contained within the claim 

file or specific to that claim; and 

8. To the extent in defendant’s custody, 

control, or possession, the entire 

nonprivileged file of any expert, 

estimator or contractor hired by the 

defendant or its counsel to inspect the 

property and/or render a report, 

estimate, or opinion. 

c. Production: The attorneys shall meet and confer 

by telephone or in person in good faith 

concerning the method and format of any 

production, including whether the production 

shall occur through electronic means within ten 

(10) days from entry of the HSCMO. All documents 

produced shall be Bates-stamped. 

 

d. Electronically-stored information (“ESI”): To 

the extent ESI is implicated in an individual 

action, the parties shall first meet and confer 

concerning any ESI issues. Thereafter, any 

disputes may be presented to the Magistrate Judge 

by way of informal letter application. Any 

requests for electronically-stored information 

shall address, with specificity, whether “the 

burden or expense of the proposed discovery 

outweighs its likely benefit,” in light “of the 

issues at stake in the litigation,” as set forth 
9 

in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(b)(2)(C)(iii). 

e. Failure to Disclose: To the extent any party 

asserts that the adversary has failed to make 

appropriate disclosures, the party shall first 

make a written request setting forth, with 

specificity, the documentation and/or other 

information the party believes has not been 

disclosed. The adversary shall provide a written 

response within five (5) days from receipt of the 

initial correspondence. The parties shall then 

meet and confer, either in person or by 

telephone. Thereafter, any dispute shall be 

brought to the Magistrate Judge by way of 

informal letter application, which shall include 

counsel’s certification that counsel have first 

met and conferred in person or by telephone 

concerning the dispute. 

f. Privilege Log: Any documents required to be 

produced pursuant to the HSCMO, but withheld on 

the basis of privilege, shall be identified in a 

privilege log in accordance with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(b)(5). When the inadvertent 

or mistaken disclosure of any information, 

document or thing protected by privilege or workproduct immunity is discovered by the producing 

party and brought to the attention of the 

receiving party, the receiving party’s treatment 

of such material shall be in accordance with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). Such 

inadvertent or mistaken disclosure of such 

information, document or thing shall not by 

itself constitute a waiver by the producing party 

of any claims of privilege or work-product 

immunity. However, nothing herein restricts the 

right of the receiving party to challenge the 

producing party’s claim of privilege if 

appropriate within a reasonable time after 

receiving notice of the inadvertent or mistaken 

disclosure. 

5. Statements of Contentions 

Within forty-five (45) days from entry of the HSCMO, 

the parties shall exchange written statements of contentions. 
10 

The statements of contentions shall specifically address, 

without limitation, each party’s legal, factual, and/or monetary 

contentions with respect to the litigation. Counsel should not 

file these Statements of Contentions on the CM/ECF system.

6. Additional Written Discovery 

In addition to the Automatic Disclosures, the parties 

may conduct the following discovery following submission of the 

Statement of Contentions. All such additional discovery shall 

be served no later than sixty (60) days from entry of the HSCMO 

(fifteen (15) days after submission of the Statement of 

Contentions). 

a. Interrogatories: Each party may serve no more 

than one set of interrogatories limited to ten 

(10) interrogatories pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 33. 

b. Requests for the Production of Documents: Each 

party may serve no more than one set of requests 

for the production of additional documents 

limited to ten (10) requests pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 34. 

 

c. Requests for Admissions: Each party may serve no 

more than twenty (20) requests for admissions 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. 

Any responses, answers, and objections to initial 

written discovery requests shall be served in accordance with 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules. 

7. Depositions of Fact Witnesses 

a. Each party may take no more than three (3) 

depositions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 30 and 31 without leave of Court. Such 

depositions shall conclude no later than one 

hundred and twenty (120) days from entry of the 

HSCMO. 

b. All depositions are to be conducted in accordance 

with the provisions of Appendix R to the Local 

Civil Rules. 
11 

c. Scheduling of depositions shall be agreed upon by 

counsel and shall not be set unilaterally. 

 

8. Motions to Amend 

Any motions to amend the pleadings or to join new 

parties shall be filed no later than sixty (60) days from entry 

of the HSCMO.

9. Expert Witnesses 

a. All expert reports and expert disclosures 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(a)(2) on behalf of plaintiff shall be served 

upon counsel for defendant not later than one 

hundred and fifty (150) days from entry of the 

HSCMO, and shall be accompanied by the curriculum

vitae of any proposed expert witnesses. 

b. All expert reports and expert disclosures 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(a)(2) on behalf of defendant shall be served 

upon counsel for plaintiff no later than one 

hundred and eighty (180) days from entry of the 

HSCMO, and shall be accompanied by the curriculum

vitae of the proposed expert witness. 

c. Depositions of proposed expert witnesses pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(A) 

shall be concluded no later than two hundred and 

ten (210) days from entry of the HSCMO. 

d. The parties shall also exchange, in accordance 

with the HSCMO, written statements identifying 

all opinion testimony counsel that the parties 

anticipate will be presented at trial pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Evidence 701 and Teen-Ed v. 

Kimball International, Inc., 620 F.2d 399 (3d 

Cir. 1980). 

10. Discovery Applications and Motions 

In light of the Court’s requirement that the parties 

meet and confer prior to filing an informal discovery 

application or motion, the Court does not anticipate significant 

discovery motion practice. 
12 

To the extent necessary, any modifications to the 

schedule and/or scope of the discovery shall be directed to the 

Magistrate Judge, and shall be filed in accordance with Local 

Civil Rule 37.1. Counsel shall first meet and confer in good 

faith by telephone or in person concerning any need to modify 

the schedule and/or scope of the discovery. This meet and 

confer shall proceed any informal application or motion, and all 

informal applications and motions shall contain a statement 

certifying counsels’ compliance with the meet and confer 

obligations set forth herein and in Local Civil Rule 37.1. 

All factual discovery motions and applications shall 

be made returnable prior to the expiration of the one hundred 

and twenty (120) day pretrial discovery period. 

11. Extensions of Time 

Any enlargement of the deadlines set forth herein 

shall be directed to the Magistrate Judge, and shall be granted 

only upon a showing of good cause. Counsel shall confer 

telephonically prior to applying to the Magistrate Judge to 

extend a deadline, and any application shall state whether the 

adversary consents or opposes the requested extension. However, 

applications that state that counsel have either too many cases, 

or are otherwise too busy to meet the deadlines prescribed 

herein, will fail to establish the requisite good cause. In the 

event counsel of record claims to be too pressed with other 

cases, the Court may require substitution of new counsel. 

12. Initial Case Management Conference 

Within one hundred and twenty (120) days from entry of 

the HSCMO (at which time the parties shall have substantially, 

if not entirely, completed the pretrial discovery process), the 

parties shall appear telephonically for an initial case 

management conference before the Magistrate Judge on a date to 

be set by the Court. In the event the parties have not received 

a case management conference date upon expiration of the one 

hundred and twenty (120) day period, the parties shall submit a 

letter request to the Magistrate Judge, setting forth joint 

proposed dates. 

In anticipation of the initial case management 

conference, the parties shall meet and confer by telephone or in 

person, and shall submit a joint status report to the Court five 

(5) days prior to the scheduled conference. The joint status 

report shall be submitted to the Magistrate Judge and shall not 
13 

be electronically filed on the CM/ECF system. The joint status 

report shall address, without limitation: (1) the discovery 

completed to date; (2) any additional and/or outstanding 

discovery; (3) the timeline for the completion of any additional 

and/or contemplated discovery; (4) an explanation as to why the 

discovery has not been completed; (5) a statement of the 

disputed factual and/or legal contentions, and the remaining 

amount in controversy; (6) any other Hurricane Sandy related 

lawsuits filed or contemplated for that particular property or 

plaintiff (including, without limitation, claims related to wind 

damage, flood damage, fire damage, or any combination thereof); 

and (7) a statement setting forth the status of settlement 

discussions (including the propriety of mediation, arbitration, 

and/or a settlement conference). 

At the conference with the Court, all parties who are 

not appearing pro se shall be represented by counsel who are 

familiar with the file and have full authority to bind their 

clients in all pre-trial matters. Counsel shall also be 

prepared to discuss settlement. 

The Court shall issue in each case a scheduling order 

after the initial case management conference, which shall 

address, without limitation, time periods within which to 

complete any remaining discovery, a referral to arbitration 

and/or mediation, if appropriate, a date for the final pretrial 

conference, and/or a time period within which to submit 

dispositive motions (except with respect to motions contemplated 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 

(b)(2)). 

13. Dispositive Motions 

To the extent contemplated by the Court’s scheduling 

order issued after the initial case management conference, any 

dispositive motions shall be filed, served, and responded to in 

accordance with Local Civil Rules 7.1, 7.2, 56.1 and 78.1. No 

dispositive motions, except motions pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(2), shall be filed prior to the 

initial case management conference. 

14. Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Arbitration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 201.1 remains 

a preferred option for NFIP and direct suit cases. The parties 

may stipulate to the referral of an action to arbitration, or 
14 

the Court may order arbitration if the contested issues appear 

arbitrable. 

If the dollar value of loss constitutes the primary 

issue after the parties exchange their Statements of 

Contentions, the parties shall proceed to loss appraisal in 

accordance with the applicable standard flood insurance policy, 

or the Court shall refer the action to compulsory arbitration 

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 201.1. Any disputes concerning the 

scope, effect, and/or interpretation of the standard flood 

insurance policy with respect to the loss appraisal process 

shall be submitted to the Magistrate Judge by way of informal 

letter application. 

15. Joint Final Pretrial Orders 

In the event the Court sets a date for a final 

pretrial conference in a scheduling order after the initial case 

management conference, the proposed final pretrial order will be 

submitted in the standard form to be provided by the Court. In 

accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(d), trial 

counsel shall appear at the final pretrial conference unless 

expressly excused by the Court.

16. Notice and Opportunity to Inspect 

Prior to the demolition of any existing real property 

during the course of the litigation, plaintiff shall provide to 

defendant sufficient written notice of plaintiff’s intent to 

destruct, remediate, and/or demolish any relevant evidence. 

Defendant shall thereafter be afforded a full and fair 

opportunity to inspect the relevant evidence for a period not to 

exceed sixty (60) days. 

17. Discovery Confidentiality Orders 

Upon submission of a certification in accordance with 

Local Civil Rule 5.3(b), the discovery confidentiality order set 

forth in Appendix S to the Local Civil Rules shall be entered. 

No alternate form of discovery confidentiality order shall be 

permitted without prior approval from the Court. Any request to 

modify the discovery confidentiality order set forth in Appendix 

S shall set forth, with specificity, the grounds for any 

proposed changes. 

 
15 

18. Motions to Appear pro hac vice

Local Civil Rule 101.1 shall continue to govern 

motions to appear pro hac vice. However, in the event an 

attorney has been admitted pro hac vice in one NFIP or direct 

suit action, any applications to appear pro hac vice in 

subsequent cases may be submitted to the Magistrate Judge by 

informal letter application setting forth whether the adversary 

consents, containing a statement certifying that no reportable 

events in accordance with Local Civil Rule 101.1(c) have 

occurred during the intervening period, appending a copy of the 

order granting counsel’s pro hac vice appearance, and a proposed 

order in accordance with the form available on this Court’s 

website for Hurricane Sandy litigation. 

19. Telephonic Appearances 

Counsel shall be permitted to appear telephonically at 

all conferences, unless the Court expressly orders an in-person 

appearance. 

20. Liaison Counsel 

The Court finds no cause to necessitate the 

appointment of liaison counsel at this time.

21. Consolidation with other Hurricane Sandy cases 

All claims pertaining to the same property or 

plaintiff (including, without limitation, wind, flood, fire, or 

any combination thereof) will be consolidated for discovery 

purposes only and assigned to the same District Judge and 

Magistrate Judge. In actions in which Plaintiff did not file 

all claims pertaining to the same property or plaintiff 

(including, without limitation, wind, flood, fire, or any 

combination thereof) in the same suit, the plaintiff shall 

advise the Magistrate Judge of all such cases as soon as 

practicable, but no more than thirty (30) days after entry of 

the HSCMO. Thereafter, any Judicial Officer may sign an order 

reassigning the related cases in accordance with Local Civil 

Rule 40.1(c) to the District Judge and Magistrate Judge assigned 

to the first pending action, in addition to an order 

consolidating the actions for discovery purposes only in 

accordance with Local Civil Rule 42.1. 

 
(12 H

o H

o HLii 0

U H

• U)

H

P

QcC) xri. 0

H

c2UI Ci)

N)

CDHCD

UIUI

U)HU)H21

H0H

0 /0CDG)UI