Jujamcyn Theaters LLC v. Federal Insurance Company
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-06781
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Jujamcyn v. Federal Insurance: Judge Carter denied both pleadings motions without prejudice, allowing renewal after a relevant Second Circuit decision.
Jujamcyn Theaters LLC, Federal Insurance Company, and Pacific Indemnity Company; the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings were denied without prejudice.
What happened
In Jujamcyn Theaters LLC v. Federal Insurance Company, the parties filed cross-motions asking the court to decide the case based on the pleadings. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or the arguments on those motions.
The court denied both motions without prejudice and allowed the parties to renew them. It cited a Second Circuit decision and ordered the parties to file a joint letter by March 17, 2022, explaining how they wanted to proceed.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. directed the clerk to terminate the two motions. The order did not decide the underlying legal dispute.
The detailed version
- Jujamcyn Theaters LLC v. Federal Insurance Company · No. 1:20-cv-06781
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 3, 2022
Background
Jujamcyn Theaters LLC sued Federal Insurance Company and Pacific Indemnity Company. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide a case based on the allegations in the pleadings and other permitted materials. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or describe the parties’ arguments.
Court’s action
Because of a Second Circuit opinion cited by the court, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied both cross-motions without prejudice and with leave to renew. This means the parties were permitted to file the motions again. The court did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint status letter by March 17, 2022, explaining how they wanted to proceed. It also directed the clerk to terminate the motions listed at Electronic Case Filing Nos. 27 and 28.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.