Levy v. Law Offices Of J. Henry Nierman

S.D. New York

Levy v. Law Offices Of J. Henry Nierman

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 10, 2023·No. 7:17-cv-04022·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wav Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 17 Civ. 4022 (NSR)JICM)

LAW OFFICES OF J. HENRY NIERMAN, ef al, Defendants. pennant On December 8, 2022, the Honorable Nelson S. Roman referred this matter to the undersigned to conduct an inquest on damages and attorney’s fees. (Docket No. 94). An inquest was held on June 12, 2023. At the end of the hearing, Defendants argued that Plaintiff lacked standing under TransUnion v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). (Hr’g Tr. at 70-72). The Court advised counsel that the matter was referred only for an inquest on damages and attorney’s fees, but that they could raise the issue of standing in their post-hearing briefing. Ud. at 71). On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendants filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Docket Nos. 109-1, 110). Defendants’ brief raised the issue of standing. (See Docket No. 109-1 at 9-13). Plaintiff did not address the issue. The Court gave Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to Defendants’ standing argument, (Docket No, 121), which he did on August 2, 2023, (Docket No. 124). After reviewing the parties’ submissions and conferring with the Honorable Nelson S. Roman regarding the newly raised standing argument, Defendants are directed to write to Judge Roman by August 18, 2023, to seek permission to file a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

Accordingly, the decision on the inquest is stayed until after a determination regarding standing is made.

Dated: August 10, 2023 White Plains, New York SO ORDERED: ON tne BIO fA Cad } a oe JUDITH C. McCARTHY United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wav Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 17 Civ. 4022 (NSR)JICM)

LAW OFFICES OF J. HENRY NIERMAN, ef al, Defendants. pennant On December 8, 2022, the Honorable Nelson S. Roman referred this matter to the undersigned to conduct an inquest on damages and attorney’s fees. (Docket No. 94). An inquest was held on June 12, 2023. At the end of the hearing, Defendants argued that Plaintiff lacked standing under TransUnion v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). (Hr’g Tr. at 70-72). The Court advised counsel that the matter was referred only for an inquest on damages and attorney’s fees, but that they could raise the issue of standing in their post-hearing briefing. Ud. at 71). On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendants filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Docket Nos. 109-1, 110). Defendants’ brief raised the issue of standing. (See Docket No. 109-1 at 9-13). Plaintiff did not address the issue. The Court gave Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to Defendants’ standing argument, (Docket No, 121), which he did on August 2, 2023, (Docket No. 124). After reviewing the parties’ submissions and conferring with the Honorable Nelson S. Roman regarding the newly raised standing argument, Defendants are directed to write to Judge Roman by August 18, 2023, to seek permission to file a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

Accordingly, the decision on the inquest is stayed until after a determination regarding standing is made.

Dated: August 10, 2023 White Plains, New York SO ORDERED: ON tne BIO fA Cad } a oe JUDITH C. McCARTHY United States Magistrate Judge

Levy v. Law Offices Of J. Henry Nierman, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Levy v. Law Offices Of J. Henry Nierman (Levy v. Law Offices Of J. Henry Nierman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related