Home Market Foods v. Swiss Re Corporate Solutions Capacity Insurance Corporation

Background

Judge Torres referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Gary Stein. The court reviewed Home Market Foods, Inc.’s June 10 letter, Swiss Re Corporate Solutions Capacity Insurance Corporation’s June 30 response, and other docket entries.

Swiss Re had filed a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2025, but Judge Torres struck it because Swiss Re did not comply with requirements in Sections III.A.i and III.B of Judge Torres’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases. Swiss Re then sought an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Home Market Foods argued that the filing violation waived Swiss Re’s right to seek dismissal.

Home Market Foods also asked the court to stay, or pause, this action until litigation in Massachusetts state court concerning the forum-selection clause was resolved. Home Market Foods argued that the clause was unenforceable under Massachusetts law and that this court should defer to the Massachusetts court’s decision.

Rulings

The court granted Swiss Re’s request for an extension of time. It concluded that Swiss Re had filed its motion on the day it was due, had acted promptly after the motion was struck, and could not fairly be treated as having defaulted on its obligation to respond. The court found Home Market Foods’ waiver argument unsupported and did not need to decide whether Swiss Re had shown “excusable neglect.”

The court denied Home Market Foods’ request for a stay. It explained that the court could decide the threshold question raised by Swiss Re’s forthcoming motion without deciding the forum-selection clause’s enforceability under Massachusetts law. The order stated that if Swiss Re’s motion to dismiss were granted, Home Market Foods could pursue the stay issue in New York state court; if the motion were denied, Home Market Foods could renew the stay request in this court if appropriate.

The court directed Swiss Re to file its motion to dismiss by August 1, 2025. The parties could submit a different proposed briefing schedule for the court’s approval. The order did not decide the merits of the complaint, the enforceability of the forum-selection clause, or whether the case belonged in state or federal court.