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 stay and warned she may reinstate judgment and close the case.
Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. was required to provide the court with accurate status reports. The order also affected the defendants whose bankruptcy filings had led to the stay and the continued administration 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 directed the plaintiff to report whether the stay should continue, the case should return to the court’s calendar, or the case should be dismissed.
The plaintiff reported that the case remained in bankruptcy court but said it lacked information about the bankruptcy proceedings because it had not been retained in them. The court directed the plaintiff to provide timely and accurate status reports while the stay remained in effect.
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 itself did not 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 had filed for bankruptcy. Its prior order required the plaintiff to provide status reports every six months beginning September 30, 2020. The reports were to address whether the stay should continue, whether the case should return to the court’s calendar in whole or in part, or whether the case should be dismissed.
The plaintiff’s October 5, 2020 letter stated that the case was still in bankruptcy court and that the plaintiff believed the 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, and 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 stated that this intended action was based on the Supreme Court’s decision in the related case and the Second Circuit’s mandate.
The amended order did not itself reinstate the judgment or close the case. It addressed the case’s administration while the bankruptcy-related stay remained in effect.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.