Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 30, 2025

DSV Air & Sea Inc. v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:25-cv-05047
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In DSV Air & Sea v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping, Judge Cronan granted the parties’ request to stay the case through January 30, 2026.

Who this affects

DSV Air & Sea Inc. and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.; the case is paused through January 30, 2026, subject to a status filing about whether the stay should continue.

What happened

DSV Air & Sea Inc. v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. concerns alleged damage to goods shipped by ocean from Norfolk, Virginia, to Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates. DSV alleges that MSC failed to maintain the requested temperature, damaging the cargo.

The parties jointly requested a 90-day stay while the Second Circuit considers a similar issue: whether pallets or cartons count as the packages used to calculate a carrier’s liability limit under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The parties said the appeal could resolve the central issue in this case.

Judge John P. Cronan granted the stay through January 30, 2026. He directed the parties to jointly file a letter by that date addressing the appeal’s status and whether the stay should continue, and directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Number 15.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
DSV Air & Sea Inc. v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. · No. 1:25-cv-05047
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Oct. 30, 2025

Background

DSV Air & Sea Inc. sued MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. over alleged damage to cargo during international ocean transportation from Norfolk, Virginia, to Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates, in April 2024. DSV alleges that MSC did not maintain the requested temperature setting, resulting in cargo damage.

The opinion states that MSC relies on the sea waybills and the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, a federal statute governing certain ocean shipments. MSC argues that its liability is limited to $500 per package and that the relevant packages are the pallets rather than the cartons. The opinion identifies this as the central issue in the case.

Request for a Stay

The parties jointly requested a 90-day stay, meaning a temporary pause in the case, while the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considers a similar issue in another appeal. The appeal concerns whether pallets or cartons constitute the applicable package for calculating liability under the statute. The parties stated that a decision in that appeal could resolve the central issue in this case and help them reach a resolution.

Ruling

Judge John P. Cronan granted the parties’ request for a stay through January 30, 2026. The court ordered the parties to jointly file a letter by January 30 concerning the status of the Second Circuit appeal and whether continuing the stay remained appropriate. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Number 15. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying dispute about cargo damage, the liability limit, or whether pallets or cartons are the relevant packages.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.