Case Activity (6458)

1. Order | Filed: July 23, 2026 | Entered: July 23, 2026 LITHIA PARAMUS-M, LLC v. MYRTLE BEACH AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY, LLC et al

   Contract: Other | New Jersey

   Text Order

   TEXT ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' pre-motion letters concerning Third-Party Defendant Cox Automotive Vehicle Acquisition Services LLC d/b/a Central Dispatch by Cox Automotive's anticipated motion to compel arbitration, D.E. 90, 92, 94, and 96. Because the Third-Party Complaint does not attach or otherwise establish the asserted arbitration agreement, any motion to compel will depend on materials outside the pleadings and may be governed by the Rule 56 framework set forth in Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., 716 F.3d 764, 774-76 (3d Cir. 2013), as clarified by Young v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 119 F.4th 314, 319-21 (3d Cir. 2024).

   Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Central Dispatch to, within 7 days of this Order provide MBMB with the complete operative Terms of Use and the records on which it relies to establish MBMB's assent, including the applicable version, date and method of acceptance, identity or account of the accepting user, and any incorporated arbitration rules. The parties shall then meet-and-confer concerning whether formation, scope, enforceability, waiver, or any other arbitrability issue remains disputed; whether limited arbitrability discovery is necessary and, if so, the precise discovery sought; and a proposed briefing schedule. On or before 8/21/2026, the parties shall file a joint status letter identifying the issues on which they agree and disagree and proposing either a limited discovery schedule followed by briefing or an immediate briefing schedule. Central Dispatch's request for leave to file its motion is held in abeyance pending that submission. So Ordered by Judge Evelyn Padin on 7/23/2026. (bt)

2. Order | Filed: July 23, 2026 | Entered: July 23, 2026 LITHIA PARAMUS-M, LLC v. MYRTLE BEACH AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY, LLC et al

   Contract: Other | New Jersey

   Text Order

   TEXT ORDER: The Court has reviewed Defendant A & R Logistics LLC's renewed pre-motion letter seeking leave to file a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), D.E. 89, together with the parties' responsive submissions. A & R may proceed with its anticipated motion under Rule 12(b)(2) and may rely on the jurisdictional-discovery record to the extent permitted in challenging personal jurisdiction.

   A & R is also granted leave to assert a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge. The Court notes, however, that the Rule 12(b)(6) arguments previewed in A & R's letter appear to rely substantially on affidavits, deposition testimony, discovery responses, and other facts outside the pleadings. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court generally may not consider matters extraneous to the pleadings without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation, 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997); see also Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 F.3d 241, 249 (3d Cir. 2014). Accordingly, A & R should include a Rule 12(b)(6) argument only if it has a good-faith basis to seek dismissal based on the pleadings, exhibits attached to or properly considered with the pleadings, matters of public record, and any other materials properly considered at that stage. On or before 8/21/2026, the parties shall file a proposed briefing schedule for A & R's anticipated motion(s). So Ordered by Judge Evelyn Padin on 7/23/2026. (bt)

3. 6456 additional result(s)