Taylor v. Hudson Valley Automotive Enterprises, L.L.C.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-07329
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Taylor v. HV Cars, Judge Briccetti denied dismissal without prejudice and denied a stay as moot after the Supreme Court clarified automated-calling equipment.
Susan Taylor and the putative class, as well as HV Cars, LLC d/b/a Hudson Valley Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, were affected by the order’s handling of the motions and response deadline.
What happened
In Susan Taylor v. HV Cars, LLC, the defendant asked the court to dismiss Taylor’s amended class-action complaint and to pause the case while the Supreme Court considered what equipment qualifies as an automatic telephone dialing system.
The court paused Taylor’s deadline to respond to the dismissal motion while it considered the request to stay the case. The Supreme Court then issued its decision addressing that equipment question.
Judge Briccetti denied the dismissal motion without prejudice to refiling in light of the Supreme Court’s decision, denied the request to stay as moot, and ordered the defendant to respond to the amended complaint by April 22, 2021.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. Hudson Valley Automotive Enterprises, L.L.C. · No. 7:20-cv-07329
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 1, 2021
Background
Susan Taylor brought an amended class-action complaint individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. On December 18, 2020, HV Cars, LLC d/b/a Hudson Valley Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The defendant also moved to stay, or pause, the proceeding while the Supreme Court decided Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, which concerned what type of equipment qualifies as an automatic telephone dialing system.
The court had stayed Taylor’s deadline to respond to the dismissal motion while it considered the request for a stay. On April 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Duguid, resolving a disagreement among courts about the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system.
Rulings
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered that the defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice to refiling in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. The court ordered the defendant to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the amended complaint by April 22, 2021. The court also denied as moot the defendant’s motion to stay and directed the clerk to terminate both motions. The order did not decide the merits of Taylor’s underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.