Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 24, 2020

Mail America Communications, Inc. v. World Healing Center Church, Inc.

Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Docket
1:18-cv-08481
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Mail America v. World Healing Center, Judge Hellerstein adopted the recommendation and denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Who this affects

World Healing Center Church, Inc. must file an answer within 14 days. Mail America Communications, Inc. and World Healing Center Church, Inc. must appear for the scheduled status conference.

What happened

Mail America Communications, Inc. v. World Healing Center Church, Inc. involved the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute.

A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion. The defendant objected, and Mail America responded. The district court reviewed the objections and the recommendation.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein adopted the recommendation in full and denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. He ordered the defendant to file an answer within 14 days and directed both parties to attend a status conference.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mail America Communications, Inc. v. World Healing Center Church, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-08481
Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Date
Feb. 24, 2020

Background

World Healing Center Church, Inc., doing business as Benny Hinn Ministries, filed a motion to dismiss Mail America Communications, Inc.’s operative complaint. The opinion does not explain the claims or the underlying factual dispute.

Report and Recommendation

On December 17, 2019, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court deny the motion to dismiss. World Healing Center timely objected, and Mail America timely responded.

Review and Ruling

A district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s recommendation. Properly made objections receive a fresh review of the challenged issues; conclusory objections or repeated arguments may receive review for clear error. The court noted that the defendant’s objections appeared to repeat its original arguments but stated that the recommendation was well-reasoned and firmly supported by the record even under fresh review.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant was ordered to file an answer to the operative complaint within 14 days of the order. The parties were also ordered to appear for a status conference on March 13, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. The clerk was directed to close the pending motion.

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.