FUNARO et al v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEPHEN FUNARO and )
SHARON FUNARO, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 25-04
)
STATE FARM FIRE AND )
CASUALTY COMPANY )
and T.J. ORTMAN, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order of
November 9, 2025 (“Motion for Reconsideration” or “Motion”) and supporting brief, filed by
Plaintiffs Stephen Funaro and Sharon Funaro (“Plaintiffs”) on December 12, 2025. (Docket Nos.
20, 21). Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) filed a brief in
opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion on January 5, 2026 (Docket No. 23), and Plaintiffs filed a reply
on January 12, 2026 (Docket No. 25). In the Order that is the subject of Plaintiffs’ Motion (the
“Order”), the Court granted State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint in part, pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, and the Court dismissed, with prejudice, Counts I, II (to the extent it was
brought against Defendant T.J. Ortman), III, and IV, finding that amendment of such claims would
be futile. (Docket No. 19). In their Motion, Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to reconsider any of its
rulings in regard to individual Defendant T.J. Ortman; instead, Plaintiffs request only that the Court
reconsider its Order to the extent the dismissal of Counts I and III against State Farm was with
Case 2:25-cv-00004-WSH Document 29 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 6

2
prejudice, such that Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their claims at those Counts. (Docket No. 21 at
2-3, 6).
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that the purpose of a motion for
reconsideration “is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the party
seeking reconsideration must show at least one of the following grounds: “(1) an intervening
change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court granted the motion . . .; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d
Cir. 1999) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.
1995)). “To demonstrate clear error or manifest injustice, the United States Supreme Court
mandates a ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Buddy’s Plant Plus
Corp. v. CentiMark Corp., Civ. Action No. 10-670, 2014 WL 1317578, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 31,
2014) (quoting Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001)), aff’d, 604 F. App’x 134 (3d Cir.
2015).
As explained above, in their Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiffs seek leave to amend
their claims against State Farm at Counts I and III. In so requesting, Plaintiffs urge the Court to
amend its Order to correct an error of law here because, although the issues of estoppel and/or
tolling (in regard to State Farm’s time limitation defense) were not pled in the Complaint, the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not require Plaintiffs to plead around such affirmative
defenses. (Docket No. 21 at 5). Therefore, Plaintiffs request the opportunity to do so at this
juncture.
State Farm opposes Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration on procedural grounds, pointing
Case 2:25-cv-00004-WSH Document 29 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 6

3
to two of this judicial officer’s practices and procedures (“Chambers Rules”) that Plaintiffs failed
to abide by in filing their Motion.1 (Docket No. 25 at 3). First, Plaintiffs did not file their Motion
within the prescribed 7-day period after entry of the Court’s Order, and second, Plaintiffs did not
meet and confer with State Farm prior to filing their Motion. (Id.). State Farm also opposes
Plaintiffs’ Motion on substantive grounds, arguing that Plaintiffs’ claims are facially time-barred
based on the allegations in the Complaint, so the Court need not give Plaintiffs leave to amend
here. (Id. at 4-6).
Upon review of the parties’ arguments, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ request for leave to
amend their claims at Counts I and III. First, Plaintiffs concede that they filed their Motion for
Reconsideration twenty-three (23) days after entry of the Order at issue, even though Chambers
Rules provide that any such motions should be filed within seven (7) days after entry of an order.
(Docket No. 25 at 2). However, Plaintiffs profess that they inadvertently calendared the motion
as being due within thirty (30) days. (Id.). As Plaintiffs indicate, Rule 6(b)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure permits a court to extend time for good cause “after the time has expired if the
party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” (Id.). Furthermore, the Court is mindful that
“[t]he Supreme Court has noted that ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 6(b) is an ‘elastic concept,’
and the decision to grant an extension of time is an ‘equitable one, taking account of all relevant
circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.’” Ramos v. Quien, 631 F. Supp. 2d 601, 609
(E.D. Pa. 2008) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S.
380, 392, 395 (1993)). The United States Supreme Court has also explained that “determining
what is ‘excusable’ requires weighing such relevant circumstances as ‘the danger of prejudice . . .,
1 The Practices and Procedures of Judge W. Scott Hardy may be accessed on the Court’s website at
https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/sites/pawd/files/Hardy_Practices_Procedures_Effective_January_1_26_Updated_M
ay_1_26.pdf.
Case 2:25-cv-00004-WSH Document 29 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 6

4
the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay,
including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant
acted in good faith.’” Id. (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs., 507 U.S. at 395).
Here, the Court notes first that decisions on the merits are generally favored over decisions
based on procedure. See Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178, 1181 (3d Cir. 1984). Additionally,
the filing delay in this instance was very brief, as Plaintiffs’ Motion was filed only sixteen (16)
days late. Furthermore, there should be little impact on the proceedings as an answer has yet to be
filed in this matter, and the parties have only recently begun to engage in discovery (in accordance
with their consent motion to begin discovery (Docket No. 26)). There is also no indication that
Plaintiffs failed to act in good faith in filing their Motion for Reconsideration as they did.
Accordingly, evaluation of these factors weighs greatly in favor of the Court considering Plaintiffs’
Motion for Reconsideration on its merits, rather than denying it solely on procedural grounds.
Moreover, to the extent Plaintiffs did not expressly meet and confer with State Farm
regarding their Motion for Reconsideration, as Chambers Rules require, Plaintiffs have attached
to their reply brief an email showing they previously advised State Farm that they viewed the time-
limitation affirmative defense as evidentiary in nature, and that they did not believe the issue
should be raised in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, but State Farm proceeded to file its motion to dismiss
on such basis. (Docket No. 25 at 3 n.1). In light of the parties’ earlier discussion, the Court will
excuse Plaintiffs’ failure to meet and confer with State Farm on the issue again before filing their
Motion for Reconsideration.
Therefore, the Court will evaluate Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration on its merits. The
Court first notes that, although the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, a limitations
defense may be raised by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the bar is apparent on the face of the complaint.
Case 2:25-cv-00004-WSH Document 29 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 6

5
See Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 F.3d 241, 249 (3d Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs assert that it was not apparent
from the face of the Complaint that the matter here was time-barred, as insurers can be held to
have estopped and/or waived their time limitations through their own conduct. (Docket No. 25 at
3). Although the Court remarked, in granting State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss, that the allegations
in the Complaint appeared to indicate that any delay in the request for an appraisal was caused by
Plaintiffs’ own contractor’s delay, Plaintiffs note that they also averred in the Complaint that State
Farm continued to administer the claim until September of 2024 (Docket No. 1-2, ¶ 25), further
citing to State Farm’s acknowledgement, on April 22, 2024, that Plaintiffs’ claim had not yet been
“finalized” and “[i]nspection of the stove [remained] pending” (Docket No. 25-1). Therefore,
Plaintiffs request the opportunity to amend their allegations specifically in regard to the issue of
estoppel. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ arguments, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs
should have the opportunity to do so.
As the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to amend their claims at Counts I and III to
address the pleading deficiencies identified by the Court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order
of November 19, 2025, the Court will amend its Order at Docket No. 19 to the extent that Counts
I and III will be dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiffs will be granted leave to amend their
claims at those Counts as set forth above.
Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order:
AND NOW, this 14th day of October, 2026, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’
Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order of November 19, 2025 (Docket No. 20) is
GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court’s Order (Docket No. 19) is hereby AMENDED to the extent
that Counts I and III of the Complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to amendment
Case 2:25-cv-00004-WSH Document 29 Filed 10/14/26 Page 5 of 6

6
of those claims to address the pleading deficiencies identified in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion
(Docket No. 18).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file an Amended Complaint, as set forth
above, by November 10, 2026, in which case State Farm shall respond thereto by December 8,
2026. If Plaintiffs do not file an Amended Complaint by November 10, 2026, then Counts I and
III of the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.
/s/ W. Scott Hardy
W. Scott Hardy
United States District Judge
cc/ecf: All counsel of record
Case 2:25-cv-00004-WSH Document 29 Filed 10/14/26 Page 6 of 6