de Fernandez v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-06305
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In de Fernandez v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., Judge Woods granted a stay, treated Defendants’ motion as withdrawn, and allowed refiling after the stay.
The stay affects the plaintiffs and defendants in this case by pausing the proceedings and deadlines. Defendants may refile the withdrawn motion after the stay is lifted.
What happened
In de Fernandez v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., the plaintiffs asked the court to pause the case while another federal court considered vacating a judgment that defendants relied on in seeking dismissal of some claims.
The plaintiffs said the other court’s decision could affect defendants’ argument and that pausing the case would avoid unnecessary work. The parties had conferred, and no party opposed the requested stay.
Judge Woods granted the stay of the proceedings and all existing deadlines. The court treated the pending motion as withdrawn, allowed defendants to refile it after the stay ends, and directed the clerk to record the stay and terminate two pending motions.
The detailed version
- de Fernandez v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. · No. 1:22-cv-06305
- Gregory Woods
- Mar. 30, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs asked the court to stay, or pause, the proceedings and all existing deadlines. They asked for the stay until the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled on an agreed request to vacate a summary-judgment order and final judgment in a related case.
The defendants’ pending motion argued, in part, that the Southern District of Florida judgment should prevent some of the plaintiffs’ claims under the Helms-Burton Act from proceeding. The plaintiffs argued that vacating that judgment would defeat the defendants’ argument. The plaintiffs also stated that defendants had filed motions to intervene in the related case and its appeal, and that plaintiffs intended to oppose those motions.
Court’s ruling
The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a stay of the proceedings and all existing deadlines. It stated that the stay would not significantly affect the case’s progress, would promote judicial efficiency, and would not prejudice any party.
The court considered the pending motion at Dkt. No. 40 withdrawn. Defendants may refile that motion after the stay is lifted. The clerk was directed to note the stay on the docket and terminate the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 40 and 56.
The letter requesting the stay refers to defendants’ motion as Dkt. 41, while the court’s endorsement identifies the withdrawn motion as Dkt. 40. The opinion does not state what motion was pending at Dkt. 56.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.