Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 26, 2023

Bank Of Baroda, New York Branch v. Kejriwal Newsprint Mills, LLC

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:21-cv-06982
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bank of Baroda v. Kejriwal Newsprint Mills, Judge Carter granted the motion to strike defendants’ jury demand.

Who this affects

The ruling affected Kejriwal Newsprint Mills, LLC and Rachna Kejriwal by striking the jury demand asserted in their answer and counterclaim.

What happened

In Bank Of Baroda, New York Branch v. Kejriwal Newsprint Mills, LLC, the plaintiff asked the court to strike the jury demand in the defendants’ answer and counterclaim.

The defendants did not oppose the motion and did not object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation that the motion be granted. The district court found no clear error in that recommendation.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. adopted the recommendation, granted the plaintiff’s motion, and struck the jury demand. The clerk was directed to close the motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bank Of Baroda, New York Branch v. Kejriwal Newsprint Mills, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-06982
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
May 26, 2023

Background

Bank of Baroda, New York Branch filed a second motion to strike the jury demand asserted by Kejriwal Newsprint Mills, LLC and Rachna Kejriwal in their answer and counterclaim. The motion was filed at ECF No. 43. The defendants did not oppose it.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo recommended that the motion be granted. The parties were notified that they could object, but no objections were filed by the deadline.

Ruling

Because there were no timely objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. The court found no clear error and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in its entirety. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 43 and struck the jury demand in the defendants’ answer and counterclaim. The clerk was requested to terminate the pending motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.