UA Local 13 & Employers Group Insurance Fund v. Sealed Air Corporation
- Louis Stanton
- 1:19-cv-10161
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In UA Local 13 v. Sealed Air, Judge Stanton received Sealed Air’s unopposed request for a two-week briefing extension.
Sealed Air and the plaintiffs who filed the motion for class certification, including the proposed class representatives and counsel.
What happened
UA Local 13 & Employers Group Insurance Fund v. Sealed Air Corporation concerns plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class and appoint class representatives and counsel.
Sealed Air asked for two additional weeks—until August 12, 2022—to respond, including time to depose witnesses and prepare expert testimony. The letter says this was the first extension request and that the plaintiffs did not oppose it.
The filing was addressed to Judge Louis L. Stanton, but the supplied text does not include a ruling on the request.
The detailed version
- UA Local 13 & Employers Group Insurance Fund v. Sealed Air Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-10161
- Louis Stanton
- July 22, 2022
Nature of the Filing
The supplied document is a letter from Sealed Air’s counsel to Judge Stanton, not a court order deciding a motion. It concerns the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and counsel, filed on July 15, 2022.
Request
Sealed Air requested a two-week extension, until August 12, 2022, to file its opposition brief and responsive expert testimony. Counsel said the plaintiffs’ motion included an expert report, supporting exhibits, and three affidavits from proposed class representatives. Sealed Air said it needed additional time to depose the plaintiffs’ witnesses and prepare expert analyses, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. The letter states that the request was unopposed and was Sealed Air’s first request for an extension.
Disposition
The supplied text does not state that Judge Stanton granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on the extension request. No court disposition is identified.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.