SpeedFit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc.
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:22-cv-04733
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In SpeedFit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc., Judge Hellerstein found no default and denied in part and granted in part the sealing motion.
The plaintiffs and defendants in SpeedFit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc.; the defendants could not obtain a certificate of default against them, and they could only partially seal the specified exhibit.
What happened
In SpeedFit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc., the plaintiffs sought a certificate of default, arguing that the defendants had not met the procedural requirements after removing the case from state court. The defendants had removed the case on June 6, 2022, and filed a motion to dismiss on June 13, 2022.
The court found that the defendants were not in default. A state-court agreement gave them until June 10 to respond, and the federal rule for removed cases gave them seven days after removal to answer or present defenses. The court also ruled on the defendants’ request to seal an exhibit.
Judge Hellerstein denied in part and granted in part the motion to seal. The defendants could not seal the entire exhibit but could redact proprietary confidential information that might cause competitive harm. The court did not decide the pending motion to dismiss, which would be addressed after the plaintiffs had an opportunity to respond.
The detailed version
- SpeedFit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-04733
- Cathy Seibel
- June 17, 2022
Background
The case was removed from the Supreme Court of New York, County of Westchester, on June 6, 2022. The plaintiffs sought a certificate of default, asserting that the defendants had not complied with procedural requirements related to removal. The defendants had filed a motion to dismiss on June 13, 2022, and also moved to seal certain exhibits filed with that motion.
Certificate of Default
The court concluded that there was no basis to issue a certificate of default. The parties’ state-court stipulation gave the defendants until June 10, 2022, to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c), which governs the time to respond in removed cases, gave the defendants seven days after filing the notice of removal to answer or present defenses. Because the notice of removal was filed on June 6, the June 13 motion to dismiss was timely. The court therefore determined that the defendants were not in default.
Motion to Seal
The court denied in part and granted in part the defendants’ motion to seal. The defendants could not file the entirety of Exhibit A to the declaration of Nicole Marschean under seal. They could redact proprietary confidential information that could cause competitive injury if disclosed.
Disposition
There was no basis to issue a certificate of default. The motion to seal was denied in part and granted in part. The court stated that the pending motion to dismiss would be decided after the plaintiffs had an opportunity to respond, and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 11. The order was signed by Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.