SFM Realty Corp. v. Lemanski
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-00209
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In SFM Realty Corp. v. Lemanski, Judge Failla denied Lemanski’s request to undo the dismissal and set deadlines for related proceedings.
The dismissal remains in place against Patricia M. Lemanski and SFM Realty Corp.; the parties must follow the ordered briefing schedule for the sanctions motion and wrongful-seizure claim.
What happened
SFM Realty Corp. v. Lemanski involved Defendant Patricia M. Lemanski’s request to undo Plaintiff SFM Realty Corp.’s voluntary dismissal of the case. The parties also addressed Lemanski’s planned wrongful-seizure claim and anticipated sanctions motion.
The court denied Lemanski’s request to vacate the voluntary dismissal and confirmed that the case was dismissed. It nevertheless retained jurisdiction over collateral matters, including sanctions, and ordered briefing on the sanctions motion and wrongful-seizure claim.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla set deadlines for Lemanski’s opening papers, SFM Realty’s response, and Lemanski’s reply. The opinion does not decide the merits of the sanctions motion or wrongful-seizure claim.
The detailed version
- SFM Realty Corp. v. Lemanski · No. 1:20-cv-00209
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
On February 14, 2020, the parties appeared by telephone regarding three matters: Defendant Patricia M. Lemanski’s application to vacate Plaintiff SFM Realty Corp.’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; Lemanski’s intent to bring a wrongful-seizure claim; and her anticipated motion for sanctions.
Ruling on the dismissal
The Court denied Lemanski’s application to vacate the voluntary dismissal. It therefore confirmed that the case was dismissed.
Remaining matters and briefing schedule
The Court stated that it retained jurisdiction over collateral matters—issues separate from the underlying case—such as sanctions. It ordered briefing on Lemanski’s sanctions motion and her brief regarding the wrongful-seizure claim. Lemanski’s opening papers were due by March 13, 2020; SFM Realty’s opposing papers were due by April 17, 2020; and Lemanski’s reply was due by April 30, 2020.
The opinion does not rule on the merits of the anticipated sanctions motion or the wrongful-seizure claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.