Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. v. Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:11-cv-05523
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Marcel Fashions v. Lucky Brand, Judge Swain ordered accurate status reports during a bankruptcy-related stay and warned of possible case closure.
Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. was required to provide timely and accurate status reports; the defendants and the case were affected by the continuing bankruptcy-related stay and the court's warning about possible reinstatement of the prior judgment and closure of the case.
What happened
In Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. v. Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., the case was stayed because certain defendants had filed for bankruptcy. The court had required the plaintiff to provide status reports twice a year about whether the stay should continue or the case should resume or be dismissed.
The plaintiff reported that the case remained in bankruptcy court but said it lacked knowledge of the bankruptcy proceeding because it had not been retained there. The court directed the plaintiff to provide timely and accurate reports while the stay continued.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain warned that if the plaintiff failed to provide those reports, the court intended to reinstate a January 27, 2017 judgment that had previously been vacated and close the case. This order did not itself reinstate the judgment or close the case.
The detailed version
- Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. v. Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. · No. 1:11-cv-05523
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 7, 2020
Background
The court had stayed the case because certain defendants filed for bankruptcy. In its July 7, 2020 order, the court directed the plaintiff to submit a status report every six months beginning September 30, 2020. The report was to address whether the case should remain stayed, return to the court's calendar in whole or in part, or be dismissed.
Plaintiff's Report
The plaintiff's October 5, 2020 letter stated that the case was still in bankruptcy court and that the plaintiff believed a stay remained in effect. The plaintiff also stated that it had not been retained in the bankruptcy proceedings and therefore did not know their status. It recommended that the court contact defense counsel for more information.
Order
The court directed the plaintiff to provide timely and accurate status reports as a condition of keeping the action open on the court's records during the stay. The court advised that, if the plaintiff failed to provide those reports, it intended to reinstate the judgment entered on January 27, 2017, which had previously been vacated, and close the case. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the related litigation and the Second Circuit's mandate. This order did not itself reinstate the judgment or close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.