Alfredo's Foreign Cars, Inc. v. Stellantis US LLC
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-10478
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alfredo’s Foreign Cars v. Stellantis, Judge Karas ordered supplemental briefing on whether a state agency ruling affects the pending motion to dismiss.
Alfredo’s Foreign Cars, Inc. and Stellantis US LLC, which were required to provide supplemental briefing on the identified legal issue.
What happened
Alfredo’s Foreign Cars, Inc. v. Stellantis US LLC concerns Stellantis’s argument that a New York Department of Motor Vehicles judgment should prevent the court from reconsidering issues already decided.
The court ordered both parties to submit additional briefing on whether it must resolve that legal question to decide Stellantis’s motion to dismiss and, if so, what answer it should reach. The parties’ initial submissions were limited to 10 pages and due November 3, 2023, with five-page responses due November 10, 2023.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas did not decide the motion to dismiss or determine whether the agency judgment has preclusive effect; he only ordered the supplemental briefing.
The detailed version
- Alfredo's Foreign Cars, Inc. v. Stellantis US LLC · No. 7:22-cv-10478
- Kenneth Karas
- Oct. 20, 2023
Background
Stellantis US LLC moved to dismiss Alfredo’s Foreign Cars, Inc.’s case. Stellantis argued that a judgment by the New York Department of Motor Vehicles, a state administrative agency, should have res judicata effect—that is, it should prevent the court from reconsidering matters that were already decided.
Issue identified by the court
Judge Karas noted that whether an unreviewed legal determination by a state administrative agency should prevent later litigation appears to be the subject of a disagreement among federal appellate courts. The court also noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had not taken a position on that issue.
Order
The court directed both parties to submit supplemental briefing addressing two questions: (1) whether the court must resolve the disagreement among appellate courts to decide the pending motion to dismiss; and (2) if it must do so, what result the court should reach.
Each party’s initial submission was limited to 10 pages and due no later than November 3, 2023. Each party could submit a response of up to five pages by November 10, 2023. The court stated that there would be no extensions.
The opinion did not decide the motion to dismiss, determine whether res judicata applies, or rule on the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.