Interboro Packaging Corp. v. New Penn Motor Express, LLC
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-10591
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Interboro Packaging v. New Penn, Judge Halpern denied remand and default-judgment relief while setting deadlines for pleading and possible amendment.
Interboro Packaging Corp. and defendants New Penn Motor Express, LLC and YRC, Inc.; the order also set deadlines governing their next filings.
What happened
Interboro Packaging Corp. sued New Penn Motor Express, LLC and YRC, Inc. The case had been removed from state court, and Interboro asked the federal court to send it back and to proceed with its state-court motion for default judgment.
The court treated Interboro’s pre-motion letter as a motion to remand and to press the state-court default-judgment motion. The court denied that motion. It also extended the defendants’ deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint to March 4, 2022, and allowed Interboro to file an amended complaint by February 25, 2022.
Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the parties to meet and discuss issues raised in the defendants’ pre-motion letter. The order also set deadlines for the defendants’ response to any amended complaint and for Interboro’s response if the defendants pursued a planned motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Interboro Packaging Corp. v. New Penn Motor Express, LLC · No. 7:21-cv-10591
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 7, 2022
Background
Interboro Packaging Corp. was the plaintiff, and New Penn Motor Express, LLC and YRC, Inc. were the defendants. The opinion states that the action had been removed from state court. Interboro submitted a pre-motion letter asking the court to remand, or return, the action to state court and to press a motion for default judgment that it had filed in state court before removal.
Rulings and deadlines
The court treated Interboro’s pre-motion letter as a motion to remand and to press the state-court default-judgment motion. For the reasons stated on the record and the law cited there, the court denied the motion.
The court extended the defendants’ time to answer or otherwise move with respect to the complaint to March 4, 2022. The parties were directed to meet and confer about the issues raised in the defendants’ pre-motion letter. Interboro was permitted, if it chose, to file an amended complaint by February 25, 2022.
If Interboro filed an amended complaint, the defendants were required by March 4, 2022, to file a letter stating that they intended to pursue their pre-motion conference letter concerning an anticipated motion to dismiss, a new pre-motion conference letter addressing the amended complaint, or an answer to the amended complaint. If the defendants pursued their existing letter or filed a new one, Interboro was required to respond by March 11, 2022. The opinion does not provide the reasons discussed on the record for denying the motion.
Effect of the order
The order denied the requested remand and default-judgment relief and established procedures and deadlines for the next pleadings and any anticipated motion to dismiss. It did not decide the merits of the claims described in the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.