Walsh v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:19-cv-08966
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Walsh v. Caliber Home Loans: Judge Halpern denied Caliber’s dismissal motion because it did not follow required filing rules.
Kevin R. Walsh’s contract-related claims against Caliber Home Loans, Inc. were allowed to proceed past this motion. Caliber was required to answer the complaint by January 27, 2021.
What happened
In Walsh v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., Kevin R. Walsh sued his former employer over an allegedly unpaid bonus and severance payment. He brought claims for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
Caliber asked the court to dismiss the complaint. The court said Caliber had not followed the court’s local filing rules because it did not submit a supporting affidavit and attached its exhibits only to its legal memorandum. The court also said it could not consider those exhibits based on how Caliber presented them.
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied Caliber’s motion to dismiss, canceled the scheduled oral argument, and ordered Caliber to answer the complaint by January 27, 2021. The court did not decide whether Walsh’s claims would ultimately succeed.
The detailed version
- Walsh v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. · No. 7:19-cv-08966
- Judith McCarthy
- Jan. 13, 2021
Background
Kevin R. Walsh filed this action in New York state court on August 16, 2019, against Caliber Home Loans, Inc. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Walsh alleges that Caliber failed to pay him a bonus and an appropriate severance payment after his employment ended. Caliber removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds.
Motion and analysis
Caliber moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows a defendant to argue that a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. The court did not reach the underlying merits of Walsh’s claims.
The court relied on Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(3), which generally requires motions to include supporting affidavits and exhibits containing factual information needed to decide the motion. Caliber’s motion did not include a supporting affidavit, and the exhibits were attached only to Caliber’s supporting memorandum of law. The court stated that failure to comply with the local rules was sufficient grounds to deny a motion. It also stated that, because of Caliber’s presentation, the court could not consider the submitted exhibits.
Disposition
The court DENIED Caliber’s motion to dismiss. It also CANCELLED the oral argument scheduled for February 16, 2021, directed Caliber to answer the complaint by January 27, 2021, and requested that the Clerk terminate the pending motion. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.