MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v. Airlift Marine Services Pvt Ltd
- John Cronan
- 1:18-cv-10788
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In MSC Mediterranean v. Airlift Marine, Judge Cronan adopted the recommendation, struck Airlift Marine’s Answer, and ordered a Certificate of Default.
Airlift Marine Services PVT LTD, whose Answer was stricken and against which a Certificate of Default was ordered; MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., whose motion was granted through adoption of the Report and Recommendation; and Airlift (U.S.A.), Inc., against which the order did not direct those specific actions.
What happened
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v. Airlift Marine Services Pvt Ltd concerns MSC’s claim for indemnification related to a personal-injury lawsuit in New Jersey state court. MSC asked the court to strike Airlift Marine’s Answer after the company failed to obtain new counsel and respond to discovery.
Judge Wang recommended granting MSC’s motion. Airlift Marine had not retained new counsel after its prior lawyer withdrew, even though the court had warned that a corporation could not proceed without a lawyer and that failing to obtain one could lead to default. No party filed objections to the recommendation.
Judge Cronan adopted Judge Wang’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. He directed the Clerk to strike only Airlift Marine’s Answer and issue a Certificate of Default against Airlift Marine; the order did not decide the underlying indemnification claim.
The detailed version
- MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v. Airlift Marine Services Pvt Ltd · No. 1:18-cv-10788
- John Cronan
- Jan. 11, 2021
Background
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. sued Airlift Marine Services PVT LTD and Airlift (U.S.A.), Inc. for indemnification of costs and expenses that MSC incurred in connection with a personal-injury action in New Jersey state court. According to the complaint, the injury was allegedly suffered while cargo was being loaded into an ocean shipping container owned or managed by MSC.
MSC moved to strike Airlift Marine’s Answer because Airlift Marine had not complied with a court order requiring it to appoint new counsel and had not responded to outstanding discovery demands. Airlift Marine’s attorney, Steven D. Janel, had received permission to withdraw. Judge Wang then ordered Airlift Marine, a corporation, to retain new counsel and file a notice of appearance by April 10, 2020. The order warned that failure to do so could result in a default judgment. Airlift Marine never retained new counsel, and Mr. Janel did not file the required proof that he had served the withdrawal order on Airlift Marine.
Report and Recommendation
Judge Wang recommended that MSC’s motion to strike Airlift Marine’s Answer be granted. The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that they had fourteen days after service to object and warned that failing to object would waive the right to object or seek appellate review. MSC filed proof that it sent the recommendation to Airlift Marine’s address in Chennai, India, and that delivery was signed for by R. Rajesh with Airlift Marine identified as the recipient. No objections were filed.
Court’s Ruling
Judge Cronan stated that, despite the waiver, he conducted a de novo review, meaning an independent review, of the Report and Recommendation. He found it well reasoned, supported by the record, and well founded, and adopted it in its entirety. The Clerk was directed to strike the Answer on behalf of Airlift Marine only and issue a Certificate of Default against Airlift Marine. The order did not rule on the merits of MSC’s indemnification claim and did not direct the same action against Airlift (U.S.A.), Inc.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.