Laura Bryan; Veatrice Long v. All Out Die Cutting, Inc.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-2227
LAURA BRYAN;
VEATRICE LONG,
Appellants
v.
ALL OUT DIE CUTTING, INC.;
ABRAHAM KATZ
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(Dist. Court No. 98-cv-01699)
District Court Judge: Faith S. Hochberg
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 4, 2002
Before: ALITO, RENDELL, and HALL, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: March 22, 2002)
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Because the parties are familiar with the background of this appeal, it will
not be set out. Laura Bryan and Veatrice Long appeal the District Court’s denial of their
motion for partial summary judgment, motion for leave to file an amendment to their
complaint, and dismissal of their complaint.
The first issue presented for review is whether the District Court properly
denied Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. The District Court found that no
actual case or controversy existed between the named parties. Federal judicial power may
not be exercised unless there is a "legal controversy that is real and not hypothetical,"
affecting the parties in a "concrete manner so as to provide the factual predicate for
reasoned adjudication," with sufficiently adverse parties so as "to sharpen issues for

-- 1 of 2 --

judicial resolution." International Broth. of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers v. Kelly, 815 F.2d 912, 915 (3d Cir. 1987). A claim for
money damages is moot if it will never be possible for the defendant to provide any relief.
See National Iranian Oil Co. v. Mapco Intern., Inc., 983 F.2d 485 (3d Cir. 1992). In this
case, the Plaintiffs entered into a full settlement and release of all claims against both the
corporate and individual Defendants. The Assignment, Payment and Release Agreement
provides that the Plaintiffs "forever release and discharge All Out and Katz from any
liability for any judgment they may ultimately obtain in the Lawsuit." Appendix at 11. In
an annexed Supplement to the Assignment, Payment and Release Agreement, the parties
agreed that the Plaintiffs shall not "(i) initiate or take any steps to record any such
Judgment in any jurisdiction, (ii) initiate nor take any steps to enforce any such Judgment
against All Out or Katz, and (iii) take any steps which would adversely affect the credit
standing of All Out or Katz." Appendix at 14. Once the parties entered into a full release
and settlement of all claims against the individual and corporate Defendants and the
agreements were approved by the Bankruptcy Court, an actual case or controversy ceased
to exist, and the District Court could not properly exercise jurisdiction over the matter.
Therefore, we find the District Court properly denied Plaintiff’s motion for partial
summary judgment and closed the case.
The second issue presented for review is whether Plaintiffs should be
allowed to proceed with their case under N.J.S.A. 17:28-2 (1994). N.J.S.A. 17:28-2 states
No policy of insurance against loss or damage resulting from accident to or
injury suffered by an employee or other person and for which the person
insured is liable . . . shall be issued or delivered . . . unless there is
contained within the policy a provision that the insolvency or bankruptcy of
the person insured shall not release the insurance carrier from the payment
of damages for injury sustained or loss occasioned during the life of the
policy, and stating that in case execution against the insured is returned
unsatisfied in an action brought by the injured person . . . because of the
insolvency or bankruptcy, then an action may be maintained by the injured
person, or his personal representative, against the corporation under the
terms of the policy for the amount of the judgment in the action not
exceeding the amount of the policy.
This statute gives injured parties the right to proceed against a debtor’s insurance
carrier in the event that the execution of a judgment against an insured is unsatisfied
because of insolvency or bankruptcy. The statute does not give injured parties the right to
proceed against an insurer after the insured has contracted to settle any claims against it
with the injured party. See Dransfield v. Citizen Gas Co. of New York, 74 A.2d 304 (N.J.
1950). Therefore, we find this statute inapplicable to this case.
The third issue presented for review is whether the District Court improperly
denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amendment to their complaint to include the
corporate Defendant’s insurance company. The Bankruptcy Court approved the parties’
Assignment, Payment and Release Agreement on June 21, 2000. See In re: All Out Die
Cutting Inc., No. 199-20333-353 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. June 21, 2000). Plaintiffs moved for
leave to filed an amendment on July 17, 2000. Once the Bankruptcy Court entered its
Order approving the agreement, an actual case or controversy ceased to exist, and District
Court lacked jurisdiction to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint.
Accordingly, we affirm the Order of the District Court.

-- 2 of 2 --