From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morrison v. Barclays Bank

United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Jul 22, 2021
21 Civ. 3612 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 22, 2021)

Opinion

21 Civ. 3612 (LGS)

07-22-2021

JAMES MORRISON, Plaintiff, v. BARCLAYS BANK, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

WHEREAS, on July 21, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a Proposed Default Judgment against Defendant Surplus Freight, Inc.;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff brings five causes of action against Surplus Freight: (1) violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act (“FCBA”), (2) fraudulent inducement, (3) breach of New York General Business Law § 349, (4) breach of contract and (5) unjust enrichment;

WHEREAS, it is unclear from the documents submitted in support of the Proposed Default Judgment whether a cause of action pursuant to the FCBA exists against Defendant Surplus Freight, see Rotblut v. Ben Hur Moving & Storage, Inc., 585 F.Supp.2d 557, 559-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). It is hereby

ORDERED that by August 5, 2021, Plaintiff shall submit a letter not to exceed five pages (1) explaining the basis for Surplus Freight's liability to Plaintiff under the FCBA and (2) setting forth the basis for subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims against Surplus Freight in the event Plaintiff does not have a FCBA claim against Defendant Surplus Freight. If the basis for jurisdiction is diversity, the letter shall explain how the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. It is further

ORDERED that the July 29, 2021, conference is adjourned sine die.


Summaries of

Morrison v. Barclays Bank

United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Jul 22, 2021
21 Civ. 3612 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 22, 2021)
Case details for

Morrison v. Barclays Bank

Case Details

Full title:JAMES MORRISON, Plaintiff, v. BARCLAYS BANK, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of New York

Date published: Jul 22, 2021

Citations

21 Civ. 3612 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 22, 2021)