JAS Forwarding, Inc. v. Mediterranean Shipping Company Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-09741
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In JAS Forwarding v. Mediterranean Shipping, Judge Ramos granted the parties’ request to stay deadlines while they finalized settlement.
JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc. and Mediterranean Shipping Company (USA), Inc. and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.; all deadlines in the case were stayed, and the parties must provide a status update within six months if they do not settle.
What happened
JAS Forwarding sued Mediterranean Shipping Company (USA), Inc. and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. over goods that were sent to India instead of Brazil. JAS sought damages for the cargo’s non-delivery, while MSC asserted a counterclaim for detention and demurrage charges.
The parties jointly asked the court to pause the case and all deadlines while they completed settlement efforts. They said resolving the cargo’s disposition in India, including the customs process, could take an additional three to six months.
In JAS Forwarding v. Mediterranean Shipping, Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the request to stay all deadlines. He directed the parties to provide a status update within six months if they had not settled.
The detailed version
- JAS Forwarding, Inc. v. Mediterranean Shipping Company Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09741
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 24, 2020
Background
JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc. brought claims against Mediterranean Shipping Company (USA), Inc. and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. concerning the international movement of goods that were misdelivered to India instead of Brazil. JAS sought damages arising from the cargo’s non-delivery to the consignee. MSC asserted a counterclaim against JAS for detention and demurrage charges.
The parties told the court that they were working toward a settlement and had made considerable progress. They said that the disposition of the cargo in India was a central part of the settlement and that the process with Indian customs could take an additional three to six months.
Request and Ruling
The parties jointly requested a stay, meaning a temporary pause, of the case and all pending deadlines while they finalized their settlement. The request was granted. The court directed the parties to provide a status update within six months of the order if they did not settle.
Judge Edgardo Ramos did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or counterclaim in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.