Beiner v. Inland-Greenburgh Delaware Business Trust
- Clarke
- 7:25-cv-04220
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Beiner v. Inland-Greenburgh, Judge Clarke ordered Plaintiff to clarify whether to continue against an unappeared defendant and consent to severance.
Plaintiff and the defendants, particularly Inland-Greenburgh Delaware Business Trust, whose lack of appearance and consent affected whether Magistrate Judge Reznik could adjudicate the action.
What happened
In Beiner v. Inland-Greenburgh Delaware Business Trust and Sam’s East, Inc., the parties who had appeared filed a proposed agreement allowing a magistrate judge to handle the case. The agreement was not signed by every party, and Inland-Greenburgh had not appeared in the case.
Because Inland-Greenburgh had not agreed, Magistrate Judge Reznik could not decide the case as to that defendant. The court therefore asked Plaintiff to state whether she intended to continue the case against Inland-Greenburgh and, if so, whether she agreed to separate that part of the case.
Judge Clarke ordered Plaintiff to file a letter by September 2, 2025. If Plaintiff continued against Inland-Greenburgh without agreeing to separation, the court said it would deny the proposed agreement and refer the case to Judge Reznik for general pretrial matters and recommendations on motions that could end the case.
The detailed version
- Beiner v. Inland-Greenburgh Delaware Business Trust · No. 7:25-cv-04220
- Clarke
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background The parties who had appeared in the case timely filed a proposed consent to jurisdiction by a United States magistrate judge. Such a consent would allow the magistrate judge to adjudicate the action. The proposed form was not signed by all parties. In particular, Inland-Greenburgh Delaware Business Trust had not signed it and had not appeared in the action.
Court’s concern The court stated that Magistrate Judge Reznik would not be permitted to adjudicate the action as to Inland-Greenburgh without that party’s consent. The order therefore did not accept the proposed consent in its current form.
Required response The court ordered Plaintiff to file a letter by September 2, 2025, stating whether she intended to continue the action against Inland-Greenburgh. If she intended to do so, she also had to state whether she consented to severing the claims against Inland-Greenburgh from the rest of the action, so Judge Clarke could retain the non-consented portion.
Conditional next step The court stated that if Plaintiff maintained Inland-Greenburgh as a defendant and did not want the action severed, it would deny the parties’ proposed consent. The court would then refer the matter to Judge Reznik for general pretrial management and for a report and recommendation on any dispositive motions—motions that could resolve the case or claims. The opinion does not state that the court had already denied the proposed consent.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.