HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Torres
- Clarke
- 7:25-cv-02740
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Torres, Judge Clarke required HSBC to clarify its plans for nonappearing defendants before acting on magistrate-judge consent.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; the defendants, particularly MCLP Asset Company, Inc. and Petro, Inc.; and the proposed assignment of the case to Magistrate Judge Reznik.
What happened
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Torres concerns the parties’ proposed consent to have a magistrate judge handle the case. The consent form was signed by parties who had appeared, but not by MCLP Asset Company, Inc. or Petro, Inc., which had not appeared.
Judge Clarke ordered HSBC to file a letter by September 2, 2025, stating whether it intended to continue the case against those two defendants. HSBC also had to state whether it consented to separating the claims against them so the district judge could keep the part of the case requiring consent from all parties.
Judge Clarke stated that if HSBC continued against MCLP Asset Company, Inc. and Petro, Inc. without agreeing to separate the case, the court would deny the proposed consent and refer the case to Magistrate Judge Reznik for general pretrial management and recommendations on motions that could end claims. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Torres · No. 7:25-cv-02740
- Clarke
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
The parties who had appeared filed a proposed consent to jurisdiction by a U.S. magistrate judge. The form was not signed by all parties. In particular, MCLP Asset Company, Inc. and Petro, Inc. had not signed it and had not appeared in the action.
The court stated that Magistrate Judge Reznik therefore could not adjudicate the action as to those defendants. The order addressed only the proposed allocation of judicial responsibility; it did not reach the merits of the underlying dispute.
Court’s Order
Judge Clarke ordered HSBC Bank USA, N.A. to file a letter by September 2, 2025, stating whether it intended to continue the action against MCLP Asset Company, Inc. and Petro, Inc. If HSBC intended to do so, it also had to state whether it consented to severing the action against those defendants, allowing Judge Clarke to retain the portion that lacked consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.
The court stated that if HSBC sought to keep MCLP Asset Company, Inc. and Petro, Inc. as defendants and did not want the case severed, the court would deny the parties’ proposed consent. The court would then refer the matter to Magistrate Judge Reznik for general pretrial management and for a report and recommendation on any dispositive motions, meaning motions that could resolve claims or the case.
Disposition and Effect
The order required further clarification from HSBC and described possible future actions. It did not itself grant or deny the proposed consent, and it did not decide any underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.