Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 23, 2020

Famular v. Whirlpool Corporation

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:16-cv-00944
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Famular v. Whirlpool Corporation, Judge Briccetti ordered Famular to respond to Whirlpool’s argument that his class claims were untimely.

Who this affects

Walt Famular and Whirlpool Corporation; the order specifically required Famular to respond to Whirlpool’s argument concerning the timeliness of the class claims.

What happened

In Famular v. Whirlpool Corporation, the court reviewed the parties’ briefs about how a New York Court of Appeals decision, Chavez, affected the timeliness of the plaintiff’s claims.

Whirlpool argued that Walt Famular’s individual claims were timely but his class claims were not. The order did not decide whether either argument was correct.

The court ordered Famular to file a response of no more than five pages by December 7, 2020. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Famular v. Whirlpool Corporation · No. 7:16-cv-00944
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Nov. 23, 2020

Background

Walt Famular brought the case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Whirlpool Corporation. The court received and reviewed briefs addressing the effect of Chavez v. Occidental Chemical Corp., a New York Court of Appeals decision issued on October 20, 2020, on the timeliness of the plaintiff’s claims.

Issue at This Stage

Whirlpool argued that, after Chavez, Famular’s individual claims were timely but his class claims were not. The order did not resolve that timeliness dispute or decide whether the class claims could proceed.

Order

The court ordered Famular to file a response to Whirlpool’s argument by December 7, 2020. The response could not exceed five pages. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order on November 23, 2020.

Effect

This order required additional briefing. It did not grant or deny a motion, dismiss any claim, or make a final ruling on the timeliness of the individual or class claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.