Santander Consumer USA Inc. v. City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-08529
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Santander Consumer USA Inc. v. City of New York, Judge Broderick terminated an open motion and directed the parties to submit a joint case-management letter.
The parties and their counsel were affected: the Clerk was directed to terminate the open motion at docket number 22, and the parties were directed to meet and confer and file a joint letter with a proposed case-management plan.
What happened
Santander Consumer USA Inc. v. City of New York concerns a letter from counsel for Universe Towing and Anthony Acquilino responding to the court’s instructions about managing the case. The letter described the claims and defenses, but it did not ask the court for specific relief.
The letter discussed possible future motions, discovery, settlement, trial length, and whether the case should be combined with another case. Those statements were made by defense counsel and were not decided by the court in this order.
Judge Broderick directed the Clerk to terminate the open motion at docket number 22. He also reminded the parties to meet and confer, agree on one joint letter, and file that letter with a proposed case-management plan.
The detailed version
- Santander Consumer USA Inc. v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-08529
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 27, 2022
Background
Christopher R. Lynn, representing defendants Universe Towing and Anthony Acquilino, submitted a letter responding to the court’s January 20, 2022 order. The letter described Santander’s claims, the defendants’ proposed defenses, jurisdiction and venue, potential future motions, discovery, settlement, estimated trial length, and possible consolidation with another case.
The letter asserted, among other things, that the vehicle involved in the dispute had been damaged, abandoned, stored by Universe Towing, and later removed by Santander’s agents. It also stated that the defendants contemplated seeking dismissal of certain claims and claims against Acquilino personally. These were arguments and anticipated motions described by defense counsel, not rulings made in this order.
Court’s Action
The court stated that it did not read the letter as requesting any particular relief. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the open motion at docket number 22.
The court also reminded the parties that its earlier order expected them to meet and confer and agree on the contents of one joint letter. The parties were directed to file that joint letter together with a proposed case-management plan.
Effect of the Order
This order addressed case administration only. It did not decide the merits of Santander’s claims, the defendants’ defenses, any future dismissal motion, or whether the case should be consolidated.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.