Lateral Recovery, LLC v. Capital Merchant Services, LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-09336
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lateral Recovery v. Capital Merchant Services, Judge Liman invited briefs on prior decisions’ effect on three pending motions to dismiss.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Lateral Recovery, LLC v. Capital Merchant Services, LLC, because the defendants’ three motions to dismiss remained pending and the parties were required to submit letter briefs.
What happened
Lateral Recovery, LLC v. Capital Merchant Services, LLC concerns three motions to dismiss an amended complaint filed collectively by various defendants. The court identified legal questions involving the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state usury law, and whether agreements are loans or sales of future accounts receivable.
Because similar questions had recently been considered in Fleetwood Services, LLC v. Ram Capital Funding, LLC, the court asked the parties to explain whether those decisions affected the pending motions. Each letter brief could be no more than four single-spaced pages and had to be submitted by August 30, 2022.
Judge Lewis J. Liman did not decide the motions to dismiss in this order. He ordered the parties to submit the requested letter briefs, leaving the motions pending.
The detailed version
- Lateral Recovery, LLC v. Capital Merchant Services, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-09336
- Lewis Liman
- Aug. 23, 2022
Background
Various defendants collectively filed three motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The court stated that the case raised legal questions involving the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state usury law, and whether agreements should be classified as loans or sales of future accounts receivable.
Court’s Action
The court noted that it had recently addressed similar questions in Fleetwood Services, LLC v. Ram Capital Funding, LLC. It invited the parties to submit letter briefs explaining what effect, if any, those decisions had on the pending motions. Each brief could be no more than four single-spaced pages, and the briefs were to be submitted by August 30, 2022.
Disposition
The order did not grant or deny any of the three motions to dismiss. It required the parties to provide the requested briefing before the court addressed the motions.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.