“Plaintiffs [Allstate] and defendants [Auto Glass America and Charles Isaly] jointly move for an order continuing all case deadlines for a period of four months in order to allow the parties to fully address the new issues raised in defendants’ counterclaim, to address defendants’ class action claims, and to address any additional issues raised in an amended counterclaim,” portions of a newly filed joint motion to continue trial reads.
Last week both parties in the Allstate v Auto Glass America (AGA) and its owner Charles Isaly, filed a joint motion to continue trial proceedings and all remaining pretrial deadlines. The lawsuit began with Allstate’s December 2018 complaint, in which the company detailed ten counts against AGA and Isaly, stating the pair “tried to pressure Allstate’s insureds into hiring them for windshield replacements, obtaining assignments of benefits (AOBs) from insureds, submitting invoices to Allstate for excessive and unreasonable amounts and fil[ing] over 1,400 lawsuits for recovery of excessive and unreasonable amounts,” by stating Allstate shouldn’t be entitled to any financial relief.
Motion Regarding Counterclaim Also Filed
According to court documents, the joint motion was not the only item filed in the Florida middle courtroom, as Allstate also filed a motion to compel. If granted this motion would require the defendant’s [AGA and Isaly] to produce additional documents to support the pairs’ new allegations seen in the counterclaim the pair filed against the insurance company. Earlier this month Allstate filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim the as well as seeking certain allegations and AGA’s claims for attorneys’ fees be stricken if the counterclaim is not dismissed.
According to court documents, Allstate is requesting AGA and Isaly produce several items for the court, which include:
- “All invoices submitted by or on behalf of AGA to Allstate seeking payment for windshield repairs or replacements;
- All work orders generated in connection with AGA’s repairs or replacements of windshields for which it has sought payment by Allstate;
- Communications between AGA and Allstate regarding or pertaining to any Allstate insured;
- Copies of recordings of calls between AGA and any Allstate insured, agent, or employee;
- Payroll records of AGA’s employees; and
- Invoices, work orders, purchase orders, or other documents showing AGA’s purchase of windshields that were used in replacing windshields of Allstate’s insureds.”
AGA and Isaly responded by stating Allstate’s additional requested information is not needed in pursuing the lawsuit.
“This request seeks private and confidential financial records regarding non-parties and is neither relevant nor proportional to the case nor proportional to the case nor reasonably limited in scope. AGA does not intend to produce responsive documents,” a portion of AGA and Isaly’s response reads.
Following the original complaint from the Allstate v. AGA and Isaly lawsuit, AGA and Isaly sought to extend the amount of time the pair had to respond to Allstate’s discovery, which lead to the pair requesting to have the dispositive motion to dismiss. Then AGA and Isaly requested the case be dismissed. From there the presiding judge decided to partially approve and partially dismiss certain aspects of a previously filed motion to dismiss in the lawsuit. Following that decision, the defendants [AGA and Isaly] were granted additional time to respond to the plaintiff’s complaint and memorandum of law. Following the events of Allstate’s original complaint, AGA and Isaly filed a response and a counterclaim in which the pair demanded a trial by jury, as well as paid attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief as is just and proper, according to his response. Within the counterclaim, Isaly admitted that AGA obtains assignments of benefits from Allstate’s insureds but denied it obtains them ‘without informing the insureds what they are signing.
Currently all parties are awaiting the court’s decision on Allstate’s motion to compel.