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

Mctague v. Chase Bank

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:23-cv-09202
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mctague v. Chase Bank, Judge Ho ordered Chase Bank to address subject-matter jurisdiction and whether removal is proper.

Who this affects

Chase Bank must file the directed letter by November 16, 2023. The opinion does not state any separate obligation imposed on Michael Mctague.

What happened

In Mctague v. Chase Bank, the court directed Chase Bank to file a letter about two issues: whether the federal court has authority to hear the case and whether removal is proper.

The letter must rely on binding case law and may not exceed three pages. Chase Bank must file it by November 16, 2023.

Judge Dale E. Ho issued the order on October 26, 2023; the court did not decide jurisdiction, removal, or the underlying dispute.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mctague v. Chase Bank · No. 1:23-cv-09202
Judge
Ho
Date
Oct. 26, 2023

Order

The court directed Chase Bank to file a letter no longer than three pages by November 16, 2023. The letter must address whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case, and whether state removal is proper. The letter must rely on binding case law.

What the Court Decided

The court did not decide whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, whether removal is proper, or who should prevail on the underlying dispute. It issued a directive for further briefing on those questions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.