It didn’t take long for Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (collectively Allstate) to file a request to respond to a show cause order in its ongoing legal showdown with defendants, Auto Glass America LLC (AGA) and its owner, Charles Isaly. Yesterday the presiding judge discharged all of, defense attorney, Michael Laurato’s show cause orders.
“Mr. Laurato’s response contains inaccurate and incomplete statements concerning the history of conferrals among counsel for the parties and the motion to compel at issue in the Court’s order to show cause. It also makes accusations against Allstate’s counsel, including accusations of “purposeful delay” and misuse of the conferral process,” a portion of Allstate’s response reads.
Allstate is seeking the Court’s approval to “file a brief reply to Laurato’s response.” According to the auto insurance company, it wants to explain the basis for “Allstate’s assertion that Laurato made no attempt to confer” regarding the motion to compel as required by the Court’s Local Rules, and to address the other accusations raised in Laurato’s response.
However, Local Rule 3.01(c) states “no party shall file any reply or further memorandum” directed to a motion or response “unless the Court grants leave,” which is why Allstate wants the Court to allow its response.
According to yesterdays court documents, an Allstate attorney conferred by telephone with Laurato, who stated he has no objection to the relief sought by the insurance company filing this motion.
The Court ordered Laurato to show cause for the following: his failure to withdraw a prior motion to compel; his failure to comply with local rules; and his lack of candor in the court.
The lawsuit began with Allstate’s complaint alleging that both AGA and Isaly allegedly pressured its insureds into hiring them for windshield replacements, while obtaining assignment of benefits (AOBs). The lawsuit began to heat up, as AGA and Isaly responded to Allstate’s emergency motion 24 hours before the presiding judge issued an order. To which AGA and Isaly filed another motion against Allstate. Shortly after a mediation was scheduled.
The insurance company previously urged the court to deny AGA and Isaly’s motion to compel Allstate to provide its pricing agreements. Allstate cited confidentiality as its reason for not providing its pricing agreements. However the presiding judge ordered the insurance company to produce its pricing agreements.
From there AGA and Isaly responded to Allstate’s emergency protective order. The presiding judge then issued an order regarding the emergency motion. Last week Allstate requested additional time to meet with the defendants for mediation, to which the judge granted parts and dismissed parts. Ultimately the Court extended the mediation deadline until May 29, 2020. Following the mediation extension, Allstate filed an unopposed motion that requested additional time for the insurance company to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Earlier this month Allstate asked the court for a dismissal on AGA and Isaly’s motion to compel “computations of each category of damages” for each plaintiff, citing that the motion was frivolous.
Look to a future edition of glassBYTEs for continued coverage of the suit.