NuAxess 2 Inc. v. Turkish Airlines Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-03137
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In NuAxess 2 v. Turkish Airlines, Judge Schofield ordered an amended complaint and closed a docketed motion without deciding the parties’ payment dispute.
NuAxess 2 Inc., Turkish Airlines Inc., non-party Tirk Hava Yollari Anonim Ortakligi, and InsurZoom were affected by the amendment, response, conference, and case-management deadlines. The order required NuAxess to amend its complaint and directed the Clerk to close the motion at Docket No. 1.
What happened
NuAxess 2 Inc. sued Turkish Airlines Inc. over alleged unpaid health-benefit services. In a reply letter, NuAxess said Turkish Airlines or the non-party Tirk Hava Yollari Anonim Ortakligi received the services and owed $1,428,626.47, while Turkish Airlines and THY relied on payments allegedly made through their agent, InsurZoom.
NuAxess argued that InsurZoom was not a necessary party and that Turkish Airlines or THY could bring InsurZoom into the case if needed. NuAxess also proposed adding THY as another defendant without ending the case against Turkish Airlines.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed NuAxess to file an amended complaint, set deadlines for Turkish Airlines’ response and any motion-related letters, adjourned the initial conference, and directed the Clerk to close the motion at Docket No. 1. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying payment dispute.
The detailed version
- NuAxess 2 Inc. v. Turkish Airlines Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03137
- Lorna Schofield
- May 25, 2023
Background
The provided filing is a reply letter from NuAxess 2 Inc. concerning Turkish Airlines Inc.’s and non-party Tirk Hava Yollari Anonim Ortakligi’s request for a conference and briefing schedule before an anticipated motion to dismiss. The anticipated motion was described as relying on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and 12(b)(7), which concerns failure to join a required party.
NuAxess’s complaint alleged that Turkish Airlines received health-benefit services for certain employees from October 2020 through March 2021 and that $1,428,626.47 remained due. NuAxess asserted claims for unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and payment for the reasonable value of services. The letter stated that Turkish Airlines and/or THY contended that THY received the benefits and that payment was made to InsurZoom, an agent, but that InsurZoom failed to deliver the payment to NuAxess.
Parties’ Positions
NuAxess argued that the use of InsurZoom did not defeat its claims because InsurZoom allegedly acted as Turkish Airlines’ or THY’s agent, not as NuAxess’s agent. NuAxess also argued that InsurZoom was not a required party because complete relief could be granted between NuAxess and Turkish Airlines or THY. According to the letter, Turkish Airlines or THY could instead bring InsurZoom into the case as a third party if they had a claim against it.
NuAxess further proposed adding THY as an additional defendant because it could not confirm the assertion that THY, rather than Turkish Airlines, was the party connected to NuAxess for the health-benefit services. NuAxess opposed ending the action against Turkish Airlines.
Court’s Action and Case Status
The court directed NuAxess to file an amended complaint by May 31, 2023. Turkish Airlines was directed to file by June 7 either a pre-motion letter or a letter proposing a date to answer the amended complaint. If Turkish Airlines filed a pre-motion letter, NuAxess was directed to respond by June 13.
The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference from June 7 to June 21, 2023, at 4:00 p.m., and extended the deadline for the parties’ joint letter and proposed civil case management plan and scheduling order to June 14, 2023, at noon. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 1. The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied the anticipated motion to dismiss, and it does not resolve the underlying payment claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.