Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 10, 2024

Morisseau v. Global A Brands, INC.

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:23-cv-05679
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Morisseau v. Global A Brands, Judge Aaron ordered three defendants to answer and required action concerning GRILLIT, INC.

Who this affects

Gaelle Morisseau, Global A Brands, INC., Tim Alford, Manny Lopez, and GRILLIT, INC. The appearing defendants received a deadline to respond, while Morisseau received a deadline to seek a default certificate against GRILLIT, INC. or file a partial-dismissal notice.

What happened

In Morisseau v. Global A Brands, INC., the court set deadlines after a telephone conference. The order did not address the underlying claims.

Global A Brands, INC., Tim Alford, and Manny Lopez must respond to the complaint by January 31, 2024. For GRILLIT, INC., Gaelle Morisseau must either seek a clerk’s certificate of default by February 15, 2024, or file a notice partly dismissing the case if she determines GRILLIT is not a proper defendant.

Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered the order on January 10, 2024. The opinion says the reasons were stated during the telephone conference but does not include them.

The detailed version

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

Case
Morisseau v. Global A Brands, INC. · No. 1:23-cv-05679
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
Jan. 10, 2024

Order

After a telephone conference, Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered the appearing defendants—Global A Brands, INC., Tim Alford, and Manny Lopez—to respond to the complaint by January 31, 2024.

The order separately addressed GRILLIT, INC. Gaelle Morisseau was required, by February 15, 2024, to seek a clerk’s certificate of default against GRILLIT, INC. Alternatively, if Morisseau determined that GRILLIT was not a proper defendant, she was required to file a notice of partial dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) by that date.

Disposition

The court entered this case-management order following the telephone conference. It did not decide the merits of Morisseau’s claims. The opinion states that the reasons for the directives were given on the record, but it does not provide those reasons in the written order.

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.