Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nicholas L. Pullano, Jr. and Lorraine E. Pullano v. Old Carco Liquidation Trust

September 27, 2011

NICHOLAS L. PULLANO, JR. AND LORRAINE E. PULLANO, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
OLD CARCO LIQUIDATION TRUST, NOMINAL DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Richard J. Arcara United States District Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is a motion by nominal defendant Old Carco Liquidation Trust ("Old Carco") to return this case to this Court for trial and to declare that Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio lacks jurisdiction to conduct the trial. Old Carco insists in its motion papers that it is not seeking to vacate the Court's previous referral by way of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4). Rather, Old Carco asks for reconsideration of the referral on consent (Dkt. No. 189) that the Court had issued under Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") and Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580 (2003). Old Carco argues that an FRCP 73 referral can occur only when all parties give explicit consent to proceed before a magistrate judge. Because Old Carco never gave explicit consent, it concludes that the FRCP 73 referral is void ab initio and never should have issued.

Although Old Carco filed the pending motion on August 12, 2011, the Court became aware of it only recently because the FRCP 73 referral removed it from the list of recipients of notices for electronic filings. Additionally, Old Carco neither listed this Court in its notice of motion nor notified this Court that it had filed the motion. Nevertheless, the Court now is aware of the pending motion and has deemed it submitted on papers pursuant to FRCP 78(b). For the reasons below, the Court denies the motion.

II. BACKGROUND

This personal injury case has a long and complicated procedural history that the Court will not repeat here beyond what is necessary to resolve the pending motion. The original substance of the case concerned plaintiffs' claim that their 1992 Jeep Cherokee Limited was defective for lacking a safety system that would prevent the vehicle from being jump started at the solenoid. Plaintiff Nicholas Pullano jump started the vehicle at the solenoid on September 19, 2003, which allegedly caused the vehicle to slip into forward gear and run him over, leaving him a quadriplegic. Plaintiffs commenced this case on March 1, 2005 against the manufacturer of the vehicle, Chrysler Corporation ("Chrysler").*fn1 The case proceeded through discovery for a few years until Chrysler filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on May 6, 2009 (Dkt. No. 140). Chrysler notified the Court that it filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy Court"). This Court stayed the case in light of the bankruptcy filing, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.

The bankruptcy stay lasted for a little over a year. On August 3, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice with this Court that the Bankruptcy Court lifted the stay in part "solely for the limited purpose of permitting [them] to seek and obtain documents from the Liquidation Trust [i.e., Old Carco] concerning" any applicable insurance policies that might cover their claims in this case. (Dkt. No. 143 at 5.) This Court reopened the case and reinstated the prior FRCP 72 referral to Magistrate Judge Foschio to the extent that it had expired. Proceedings resumed before Magistrate Judge Foschio, with Old Carco appearing in place of Chrysler.

Although Old Carco replaced Chrysler for practical purposes for the remainder of this case, it had not yet replaced Chrysler formally in the caption. Accordingly, plaintiffs filed a motion on June 8, 2011 (Dkt. No. 176) for formal substitution of Old Carco as sole and nominal defendant. In the same motion, plaintiffs also asked the Court to adopt a Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Foschio that was pending prior to the bankruptcy filing; Magistrate Judge Foschio had recommended denying Chrysler's motion for summary judgment. Importantly, this same motion from plaintiffs further asked the Court for a permanent FRCP 73 referral to Magistrate Judge Foschio for all future proceedings including trial. The docket indicates that Old Carco's attorneys at the time, Veerle Roovers of Jones Day and John Sinatra of Hodgson Russ, received electronic notice of the filing of the motion. Old Carco's attorneys also received notice of the papers that plaintiffs filed in support of the motion, which included the following statement regarding a potential FRCP 73 referral:

It is respectfully requested that the Court assign this action to Judge Foschio for all purposes including trial. During the March 31, 2011 conference, Judge Foschio reminded the parties that this option is a possibility for the future handling of this matter. See, transcript of status conference, Exh. "B," at 22-23. While counsel for Old Carco Liquidation Trust did not stipulate directly to the assignment of this action to Judge Foschio, they have advised us that it is acceptable for us to represent that Old Carco Liquidation Trust does not take any position with respect to assigning this action to Judge Foschio. We respectfully submit that under the unique circumstances presented by the bankruptcy proceedings, and pursuant to the authority cited in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, the defendant's consent to the referral may be inferred.

We also have provided counsel for Old Carco Liquidation Trust with a draft of this Declaration and accompanying Memorandum of Law before submitting it to the Court. (Dkt. No. 177 ¶¶ 17--18.)

To give Old Carco an opportunity to respond to plaintiffs' motion, including the request for an FRCP 73 referral, the Court issued a Text Order on June 10, 2011 that gave Old Carco until June 24, 2011 to file responding papers. (Dkt. No. 180.) That same Text Order scheduled oral argument on the motion for July 14, 2011. On June 24, 2011, Old Carco filed a response to plaintiffs' motion containing two assertions. First, Old Carco agreed with plaintiffs' proposed amendment to the caption of the case. Second, Old Carco made the following statement with respect to all other aspects of plaintiffs' motion, including the request for an FRCP 73 referral:

The Liquidation Trust, being a nominal defendant in this matter, does not take a position with respect to the remainder of Plaintiffs' requests for relief in the Motion, nor does the Liquidation Trust take a position regarding the terms, conditions or availability of any insurance coverage with respect to Plaintiffs' claims. (Dkt. No. 181 ¶ 3.) Old Carco went one step further in consenting to an FRCP 73 referral, filing a second notice on July 11, 2011 that contained the following statement:

Given its limited role as a nominal defendant in this action in accordance with the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order, the Liquidation Trust hereby provides notice of its intention (a) not to participate in (i) the Oral Argument or (ii) any further oral arguments or hearings and (b) not to make any further appearances in this matter unless this Court orders or requests otherwise.

Therefore, and unless the Court orders or requests otherwise, the nominal defendant the Liquidation Trust will respectfully (a) not participate in the Oral Argument and (b) not make any further ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.