5
B. Procedural History of These Cases
Plaintiffs filed Civil Action 02 Civ. 7188 on September 10, 2002 against
the City and the Port Authority,
2
and Civil Action 04 Civ. 7272 on September 10, 2004
against the owners and lessees of 7WTC, and against the design and construction
professionals who designed and built 7WTC and the leased floors of Salomon and the
City. Plaintiffs seek to recover their damage, the amounts paid to Con Ed and costs
incurred defending Con Ed.
In lieu of an answer, the City moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs
could not state a legally sufficient claim for relief because of statutory immunities
enjoyed by the City. On December 1, 2004, I heard oral argument, and ruled at that time
that the motion was premature, before an answer pleading the immunities as affirmative
defenses was filed. I ordered limited discovery to create an appropriate record, and
invited the motion then to be renewed. The parties have completed their limited
discovery, and the City now renews its motion as a motion for summary judgment.
The Port Authority also moved to dismiss the Complaint in 02 Civ. 7188,
arguing that the Port Authority's negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiffs'
damages and that the lease agreement between the Port Authority and Con Ed barred Con
Ed's subrogated insurers from maintaining an action against the Port Authority.
Following oral argument, I denied the Port Authority's motion without prejudice to
resubmission after limited discovery. The Port Authority now renews its motion to
dismiss, on essentially the same record as previously.
2
In a separate action filed on September 11, 2002, 02 Civ. 7328, various plaintiffs, claiming rights as
subrogees of Citigroup, asserted additional claims against the Port Authority. The Motion of the Port
Authority to dismiss the claims in 02 Civ. 7328 will be addressed separately.
