Shleppers Holdings, LLC v. Civic Van Lines, Inc.
- Clarke
- 7:25-cv-03294
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Shleppers Holdings v. Civic Van Lines, Judge Clarke denied Civic’s request to postpone the August 13, 2025 initial pretrial conference.
Civic Van Lines, Inc. must proceed with the initial pretrial conference scheduled for August 13, 2025, and Shleppers Holdings, LLC remains involved in that conference; the order did not resolve either party’s underlying claims.
What happened
Shleppers Holdings, LLC sued Civic Van Lines, Inc. in federal court over a license agreement involving the Shleppers name and trademark. Civic’s filing described a related state-court case involving overlapping license-agreement and state-law issues.
Civic asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference until after a September 16, 2025 mediation. Civic said the two cases involved overlapping issues and that proceeding in both courts could waste resources or produce conflicting results. Shleppers’ counsel did not consent to the request.
The court denied the application and kept the initial pretrial conference scheduled for August 13, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke signed the order on August 7, 2025.
The detailed version
- Shleppers Holdings, LLC v. Civic Van Lines, Inc. · No. 7:25-cv-03294
- Clarke
- Aug. 7, 2025
What the court decided
The court denied Civic Van Lines, Inc.’s application to adjourn, or postpone, the initial pretrial conference. The conference remained scheduled for August 13, 2025, at 2:30 p.m.
Background
Shleppers Holdings, LLC brought the federal action against Civic concerning a 2015 license agreement under which Civic received the right to use the Shleppers name and trademark in certain parts of California. The federal complaint asserted claims under the federal trademark statute and copyright law. The opinion text states that the federal case was filed on April 22, 2025, and that Shleppers allegedly terminated the license agreement on February 26, 2025.
Civic’s counsel described a separate state-court action between related parties that was filed earlier and involved overlapping claims concerning the license agreement. According to Civic’s letter, the state action could decide state-law issues that Civic viewed as threshold issues in the federal case, including whether Civic breached the license agreement and whether certain individuals had authority to cause Shleppers to terminate it. These statements were presented by Civic in support of its request; the order did not decide those underlying issues.
Civic’s request
Civic asked to move the initial pretrial conference to a date after a mediation scheduled for September 16, 2025. Civic said mediation in the state and federal matters was ongoing, that the two cases involved duplicative issues, and that simultaneous litigation could waste judicial resources and party resources or lead to conflicting results. Civic also asked that related case deadlines be moved. As an alternative, Civic requested an immediate remote conference with the court.
Ruling and effect
The court’s endorsement stated: “Application DENIED.” It also stated that the conference scheduled for August 13, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. would be scheduled. The ruling addressed the scheduling request only. It did not decide the federal claims, the license agreement dispute, the state-court proceedings, or Civic’s proposed requests for a stay or temporary abstention.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.