Judge Joan Margolis has granted Safelite Group’s request to amend its Connecticut complaint over an Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work (Public Act 13-67) to seek reimbursement of attorneys’ fees. She has also set a schedule for the dispute to play out in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut.
In mid-August, Safelite had moved for leave to file a first-amended complaint over Connecticut’s anti-steering law in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut. The changes in the amended complaint include switching much of the phrasing to past tense since the law has gone into effect. Safelite is also now seeking reimbursement of attorneys’ fees.
“Safelite proposes to amend its complaint to assert a claim against defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and, relatedly, for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, based on the facts already pled in the original complaint. Plaintiffs’ counsel conferred with counsel for the defendants, who advised plaintiffs’ counsel that they do not consent to the relief sought herein,” Safelite’s attorneys’ write in their amended complaint.
Attorneys representing the Connecticut Attorney General and State Insurance Commissioner did not respond to the amended complaint in court.
In her electronic order granting the motion to amend/correct, Judge Margolis noted, “no timely brief in opposition was filed.”
The new court schedule requires:
—All fact discovery completed by 10/24/14;
—Plaintiffs’ expert reports due by 10/10/14;
—Defendants’ expert reports due by 10/24/14;
—Plaintiffs’ rebuttal reports due by 11/7/14;
—Dispositive and Daubert motions due by 11/7/14 (after a prefiling conference has been held before Judge Arterton);
—Briefs in opposition to these motions due by 12/5/14; and
—Reply briefs to these motions due by 12/19/14.
Stay tuned to glassBYTEs.com™ for more on this case as it develops.