Barry's Auto Body of NY LLC v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------x
BARRY’S AUTO BODY OF NY, LLC,
Plaintiff,
-against-
ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,INC., ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------x
ORDER
# 25-CV-3371 (EK)(PK)
# 24-CV-1309 (EK)(LKE)
# 24-CV-4067 (EK)(LKE)
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Barry’s Auto Body of NY, LLC, alleges in three
separate actions that defendants Allstate Fire & Casualty
Insurance Company, Inc., and Allstate Insurance Company failed
to negotiate auto repair claims in good faith, in violation of
New York General Business Law (“GBL”) § 349, among other claims.
Because of the related nature of these cases, the Court set oral
argument in all three for April 13, 2026.
Barry’s alleges that it “brings this action both in
its individual capacity and as an Assignee pursuant to written
assignments of claim(s) it obtained from individual customers
whose vehicles were repaired at its shop.” 	Amended Compl., 25-
CV-3371, ECF No. 2 at ¶ 1; see also Compl., 24-CV-1309, ECF No.
1-1 at ¶ 4 (“Plaintiff is the Assignee of personal property
damage claims by the following persons (‘Assignors’), each of
Case 1:25-cv-03371-EK-PK Document 23 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
whom brought their vehicles to Plaintiff for repairs.”); Amended
Compl., 24-CV-4067, ECF No. 24 at ¶ 6 (same).
On or before March 25, in a brief not exceeding ten
double-spaced pages, Barry’s should address the following
questions:
1. 	To what extent, and in what precise respects, are
Barry’s Section 349 claims predicated on its own
alleged injuries, versus those of its customers? 	To
the extent Barry’s seeks recompense for both sets of
injuries, to what extent should those claims be
pursued in separate causes of action? 	See Connecticut
v. Physicians Health Servs. Of Connecticut, Inc., 287
F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2002)(emphasis added)1
(explaining that the assignee “replaces the assignor
with respect to the claim or the portion of the claim
assigned, and thus stands in the assignor's stead with
respect to both injury and remedy.”); see also Vermont
Agency of Nat. Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S.
765, 773 (2000)( “the assignee of a claim has standing
to assert the injury in fact suffered by the
assignor”).
2. 	To the extent Barry’s seeks to press the claims of its
customers, has it met the pleading requirements
concerning the assignment of those claims? 	See Prince
of Peace Enters., Inc. v. Top Quality Food Mkt., LLC,
760 F. Supp. 2d 384, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (conclusory
allegations that a claim was assigned fail to meet
pleading requirements).
3. 	In what way does the complaint currently allege that
Barry’s or its customers were actually misled by
Allstate’s conduct? 	Do those allegations suffice to
establish Article III standing to pursue the Section
1 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order
accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks.
Case 1:25-cv-03371-EK-PK Document 23 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
349 claims? 	Cf. Trichell v. Midland Credit Mgmt.,
Inc., 964 F.3d 990, 994 (11th Cir. 2020) (plaintiffs
lacked standing to assert FDCPA claims when they
“received debt-collection letters that they say were
misleading, but neither of them claim[ed] to have been
misled”).
On or before April 8, in a brief not to exceed the same length,
the defendants should file a reply. 	To the extent Barry’s will
seek leave to amend the complaint to address one or more of the
questions raised above, it should so indicate on or before March
15.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee__________
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	February 23, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:25-cv-03371-EK-PK Document 23 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>