The City of New York v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. et al
| The City of New York |
| FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., |
| 1:2013cv09173 |
| December 30, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Edgardo Ramos |
| Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Defendant |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
629
OPINION: For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED and FedEx's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically: 1. Summary judgment is GRANTED to Plaintiffs on FedEx's liability for violating the CCTA; 2. Summary judgment is GRANTED to Plaintiffs on their proposed formula for calculating damages under the CCTA; 3. Summary judgment is GRANTED to the State of New York on FedEx's liability for violating the AOC; 4. As they have now abandoned thei r RICO conspiracy claim, Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion on the claim is DENIED as moot; 5. Similarly, as Plaintiffs have now abandoned their substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy claims, FedEx's summary judgment motion on both claims is DENIED as moot; 6. FedEx's summary judgment motion on its affirmative defense of statute of limitations against Plaintiffs' CCTA claim is GRANTED IN PART, with the result that Plaintiffs may pursue CCTA violations occurring on or after Dec ember 30, 2009 for shippers named in FedEx I, and CCTA violations occurring on or after November 12, 2010 for shippers named in FedEx II; 7. FedEx's summary judgment motion on its affirmative defense of statute of limitations for breach of the AOC is GRANTED IN PART, with the result that the State of New York may pursue AOC violations occurring on or after December 30, 2007 for shippers named in FedEx I, and AOC violations occurring on or after November 12, 2008 for shippers named in FedEx II; 8. Summary judgment is DENIED to FedEx on its affirmative defense of equitable estoppel; and 9. Summary judgment is DENIED to FedEx on all claims relating to Two Pine. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 10/5/2018) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
580
OPINION & ORDER re: 414 MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion to File A Consolidated Amended Complaint filed by The City of New York, The People of The State of New York: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion to file a consolidated amended complaint is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motion, Doc. 414. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 9/20/2018) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
532
OPINION & ORDER re: 529 LETTER MOTION for Local Rule 37.2 Conference addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Brian L. Stekloff dated 8/21/2018. filed by FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.,. The Court consequently denies FedEx Ground l eave to file a motion to exclude the testimony of Dawn McCarrell, Matt Myers, Matthew Myerson, and Christopher Nichols, without prejudice to FedEx Grounds right to make any other objection to their testimony. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion (Doc. 529). It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 9/7/2018) (rj)
|
|
Filing
379
OPINION AND ORDER re: 285 MOTION to Compel Production, 291 MOTION for Protective Order: The City of New York ("City") and the People of the State of New York ("State") (together, "Plaintiffs") bring this consolidated action against FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ("FedEx"). Before this Court is FedEx's motion to compel the State to provide certain discovery and Plaintiffs' cross-motion for a protective order. For the reasons set forth above, FedEx's motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The State is hereby ordered to produce those documents, if any, that are responsive in accordance with this Order, and revise its privilege and redaction logs and the accompanying Hiller declaration by October 3, 2017. Plaintiffs' motion for protective order is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motions Docs. 285, 291. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 9/18/2017) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
346
OPINION AND ORDER: On May 25, 2017, the Court held a conference during which it denied Plaintiffs' motion to compel further discovery concerning certain new shippers, including Payless Enterprises ("Payless") and A A Discount Cigarettes ("AADC") ("May Conference"). By letter dated June 8, 2017, Plaintiffs sought clarification on whether the Court's ruling was intended to apply to Payless and AADC, which are alter egos of the ship per Your Kentucky Tobacco Resources (YKTR) named in Fedex II. Doc. 331. Although the transcript of the proceedings makes it exceedingly clear, the Court reiterates that Plaintiffs' motion to compel further discovery concerning Payless an d AADC is denied, except that it ordered Defendants to turn over the actual ISF forms. See Doc. 336 at 57:25-58:3. The Court did not make any other exceptions to its ruling. Separately, by letter dated June 2, 2017, Plaintiffs also contend that FedEx Ground Package System ("FedEx") waived attorney-client privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(a) to a 2008 email communication it deemed privileged involving a former FedEx account executive Dan Skelley ("Skelle y"), Doc. 246-1 ("FedEx Email"), as well as seven other undisclosed email communications in 2009 involving Skelley. Doc. 326. Plaintiffs state that FedEx waived privilege to those communications with legal counsel r egarding FedEx tobacco policy by permitting Skelley to testify on May 7, 2017 about his communications with FedEx's legal department, and by asking Skelley to confirm what the legal department told him. By letter dated June 9, 2017, FedEx asserts that there was no waiver of privilege. Doc. 334. FedEx states the following: (1) any privilege waiver arising from that testimony does not affect the FedEx Email or any emails in 2009 because while the testimony only concerned supposed communications in 2005, the emails at issue were written in 2008 and 2009, years after FedEx entered into the Assurance of Compliance with the State of New York; and (2) there was nevertheless no privilege waiver because there is reason to believe that Skelley's purported contact with legal in 2005 never occurred. Rule 502(a) states that attorney-client privilege is only waived as to undisclosed communications if: "(1) the waiver is intentional; (2) the disclosed and undi sclosed communications or information concern the same subject matter; and (3) they ought in fairness to be considered together." Fed. R. Evid. 502(a). Such subject matter waiver of attorney-client privilege is "reserved for those unus ual situations in which fairness requires a further disclosure of related, protected information, in order to prevent a selective and misleading presentation of the evidence to the disadvantage of the adversary." Seyler v. T-Sys. N. Am., In c., 771 F. Supp. 2d 284, 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 502(a) Advisory Committee Note). The Court finds that FedEx did not waive privilege to the extent that none of the emails at issue concern the narrow subject matter discus sed at Skelley's deposition. At Skelley's deposition, counsel for FedEx, Brian Stekloff ("Stekloff"), expressly sought to limit discussions of any communications with the legal department to the supposed 2005 communication that Skelley had testified about earlier that day. Skelley Dep. Tr. 131:21-132:8. Stekloff also sought to ensure that Skelley did not testify on any privileged emails, id. at 43:2-45:10, and Skelley did not in fact testify about any specific email communications in 2008 or 2009; as further set forth herein. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions, Docs. 326, 335. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 8/7/2017) (mro)
|
|
Filing
312
OPINION AND ORDER re: 306 LETTER MOTION to Compel FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. to produce discovery, 310 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Sur-reply in Opposition to Dkt. 306: Defendant's request to file a sur-reply is GRANTED. The parties are further directed to appear for a conference on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 2:30 PM. (Status Conference set for 4/18/2017 at 02:30 PM before Judge Edgardo Ramos.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 4/7/2017) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
298
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, FedEx's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' NYPHL and N.Y. Exec. Law claims is DENIED and Plaintiffs' request for discovery is GRANTED. In light of the fact that the current deadline for document production in FedEx II has already passed(19)(The Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order provides that the production of all documents was to be completed by March 16, 2016 in FedEx I and by October 17, 2016 in FedEx II. Sept. 23, 2016 Order (FedEx I, Doc. 235) 8.), the parties are directed to submit a proposed amended scheduling order by March 7, 2017. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 209. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 2/21/2017) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
289
OPINION AND ORDER re: 177 CROSS MOTION to Dismiss FedEx's Seventh Defense filed by The City of New York. For the foregoing reasons, the City's motion to strike the seventh affirmative defense is DENIED and FedEx's objections to the January 15, 2016 Order are SUSTAINED in part. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 177. (As further set forth in this Opinion and Order.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 2/14/2017) (mro)
|
|
Filing
192
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, FedEx's objections to the August 13 Order are SUSTAINED in part and the August 13 Order is set aside. Plaintiffs' motions for a protective order are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The City's objections to the November 17 Order are OVERRULED and the November 17 Order is AFFIRMED. It is SO ORDERED. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 4/27/2016) (kko)
|
|
Filing
184
OPINION AND ORDER re: (62 in 1:14-cv-08985-ER) MOTION to Consolidate Cases 1:13-cv-09173 and 1:14-cv-08985 filed by The City Of New York,, The People of The State of New York, (163 in 1:13-cv-09173-ER-KNF) MOTION to Consolidate Case s 1:14-cv-08985 and 1:13-cv-09173 filed by The City of New York, People of The State of New York. For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to ter minate the motion (FedEx I, Doc. 163; FedEx II, Doc. 62). All future filings in this case shall be filed in FedEx I and bear the same caption as that case number. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close FedEx II. It is SO ORDERED. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 4/15/2016) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:13-cv-09173-ER-KNF, 1:14-cv-08985-ER(kko)
|
|
Filing
176
OPINION AND ORDER re: 89 MOTION to Dismiss Affirmative Defenses filed by The City of New York, People of The State of New York. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion in part and DENIES it in part. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion. Doc. 89. (As further set forth in this Opinion and Order.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/31/2016) (mro)
|
|
Filing
68
OPINION AND ORDER re: 28 MOTION to Dismiss In Part filed by FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. For the reasons set forth above: Defendant's motion to dismiss the CCTA claim is DENIED. Defendant's motion to dismiss the RICO an d RICO conspiracy claims is DENIED. Defendant's motion to dismiss the N.Y. Public Health Law and public nuisance claims is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion. Doc. 28. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/09/2015) (ama)
|
|
Filing
67
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 47 Motion to Produce; denying 47 Motion for Sanctions. The plaintiffs' motion, Docket Entry No. 47, is denied. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 2/23/2015) (spo)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: The City of New York v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: The City of New York | |
| Represented By: | Leonard Matthew Braman |
| Represented By: | Eric Proshansky |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., | |
| Represented By: | Joel Cohen |
| Represented By: | Michele Lee Pahmer |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
