Nash v. Countywide Carting, LTD
- 7:19-cv-09138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nash v. Countywide Carting, LTD, the court's filing records defendants' planned dismissal motion; no judge or ruling appears.
The filing concerns plaintiffs Lawrence Nash, Anthony Cirello, Lonnie Whatley, Matthew Powell, Raymond Clark, Darryl Payne, and John Forte, and defendants Countywide Carting Ltd. (identified as doing business as CW Maintenance Inc.) and Morris Jacobowitz.
What happened
Nash v. Countywide Carting, LTD concerns a notice filed in the Southern District of New York. The caption lists Lawrence Nash, Anthony Cirello, Lonnie Whatley, Matthew Powell, Raymond Clark, Darryl Payne, and John Forte as plaintiffs, and Countywide Carting Ltd. and Morris Jacobowitz as defendants.
The notice says the defendants planned to ask the court to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. It does not state the reasons for dismissal beyond citing those rules.
The court does not identify a judge or rule on the motion in the provided text. The document is a notice of motion, not a decision granting, denying, or dismissing anything.
The detailed version
- Nash v. Countywide Carting, LTD · No. 7:19-cv-09138
- Feb. 5, 2020
Background
The provided document is a notice of motion filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Its caption lists Lawrence Nash, Anthony Cirello, Lonnie Whatley, Matthew Powell, Raymond Clark, Darryl Payne, and John Forte as plaintiffs. It lists Countywide Carting Ltd., identified as doing business as CW Maintenance Inc., and Morris Jacobowitz as defendants.
Motion described
The notice states that the defendants would ask the court to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court's subject-matter jurisdiction. Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether the pleadings state a legally sufficient claim. The notice refers to an attached memorandum of law but does not include the defendants' substantive arguments in the provided text.
Disposition
The provided document contains no judicial ruling. It does not say that any motion was granted, denied, or dismissed, and it does not identify the judge. The document is signed by David Stein of Samuel & Stein as an attorney for the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.