Harner's Memorandum of Law Stricken by Judge
March 7, 2012

by Katie O'Mara, komara@glass.com

A New York judge has stricken a memorandum of law filed by of an auto glass shop in response to insurers and third-party administrators that are requesting the court order the suit against them be dropped. David Harner, the owner of Auto Glass of Westchester Windshield Doctor in Westchester, N.Y., filed a suit against Allstate, GEICO, Hanover, Travelers and others, along with their TPAs, Safelite and LYNX Services. He alleges failure to pay assigned claims, delay in payment, fraud, deceptive acts, restraint of trade, unfair business practices and tortuous interference.

Harner had filed a memorandum of law a few weeks ago with the U.S. Southern New York District Court. The judge has now stricken the 70-page memorandum for its length.

“Plantiff’s 70-page memorandum of law exceeds the maximum of 25 pages allowed under my individual practices. Accordingly, that document is hearby stricken. Plaintiff may re-submit a memorandum of law that complies with my individual practices within 14 days of the date of this order,” responded the judge in court documents released on March 1. “Should Plaintiff believe the circumstances warrant a memorandum of law longer than 25 pages, he may seek permission for the same by letter, but he is advised that specific justification must be included in any such letter ... Plaintiff is further advised that he need not provide the court with copies of cases if they have been published.”

Harner has until March 14 to decide whether to submit a new shorter memorandum of law or submit a letter to the judge requesting permission for a longer memorandum.

Harner’s complaint, originally filed in May and amended in October, alleges that “all the defendants actions, individually, combined, and in concert, are unreasonable under the circumstances, [and] have denied [him] the right to earn income, his ability to create a sound business reputation, and have denied him his right to continue to operate his business without interference, in a free, unfettered, and profitable manner, within the framework of the law.”

He further has claimed that the TPAs noted “together, through planning and foresight, have created a contract an/or combination and/or conspiracy in the form of trust or otherwise, amongst and between those defendant insurers, by using the defendant PGW and/or the defendant LYNX, or the defendant Belron and/or the defendant Safelite, as intermediaries in an attempt to restrain trade or commerce, and to enforce a mandate to set and/or fix and/or stabilize prices, and/or to restrain trade, and/or whereby a monopoly is or may be established or maintained...”

This story is an original story by AGRR™ magazine/glassBYTEs.com™. Subscribe to AGRR™ Magazine.
Subscribe to receive the free e-newsletter.