Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc. d/b/a Lexus Of Manhattan
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-04572
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Judge Schofield ordered supplemental briefing on a possible effect of a recent appeals-court decision.
The plaintiffs and the defendant were required to submit supplemental letter briefs addressing the possible relevance of the Second Circuit’s decision in Soliman.
What happened
In Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, the defendant had moved for summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs’ claims, and briefing was complete.
The court said a recent Second Circuit decision, Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, Ltd., might affect the issues in the case. It ordered each side to submit a supplemental letter brief of no more than five single-spaced pages by July 24, 2024.
Judge Schofield’s order addressed only additional briefing. It did not decide the summary-judgment motion or resolve the plaintiffs’ claims.
The detailed version
- Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc. d/b/a Lexus Of Manhattan · No. 1:20-cv-04572
- Lorna Schofield
- July 11, 2024
Background
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs’ claims. Summary judgment is a procedure for resolving claims when the court determines that the relevant facts do not require a trial. The parties completed briefing on that motion on March 19, 2024.
Order
The court noted that the Second Circuit had issued an opinion on May 10, 2024, in Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, Ltd., 101 F.4th 176 (2d Cir. 2024). The court stated that the decision might affect the issues before it.
The court ordered each party to submit a supplemental letter brief by July 24, 2024. Each brief could not exceed five single-spaced pages and was to discuss arguments related to Soliman. The parties could incorporate previously filed materials by identifying the relevant docket number and page.
Effect of the Order
This order required additional briefing; it did not rule on the pending summary-judgment motion or decide the plaintiffs’ claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.