163 F.3d 149 (2nd Cir. 1998), 98-7547, Com/Tech Communication Technologies, Inc. v. Wireless Data Systems, Inc.
|Docket Nº:||Docket No. 98-7547.|
|Citation:||163 F.3d 149|
|Party Name:||COM/TECH COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WIRELESS DATA SYSTEMS, INC. and WDS II, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.|
|Case Date:||December 23, 1998|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
Submitted Dec. 14, 1998.
John J. Hasluck, Crocco & De Maio, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
William P. McGrath, Jr., Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, Washington, DC (Thomas O. Gorman, James R. Hagerty, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, and Richard A. Roth, Littman Krooks Roth & Ball, P.C., New York, NY, of counsel ) for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: FEINBERG, CALABRESI, and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff, Com/Tech Communication Technologies, Inc. ("Com/Tech"), is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York. The defendants (collectively "Wireless") are Wireless Data Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the District of Columbia, and WDS II, Inc., a District of Columbia corporation with its principal place of business in the District of Columbia.
On May 7, 1997, Com/Tech filed suit against Wireless in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York, alleging that payment was due on four demand promissory notes totaling more than $150,000. Under the procedural law of the state of New York, "[w]hen an action is based upon an instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment, the plaintiff may serve with the summons a notice of motion for summary judgment and the supporting papers in lieu of a complaint." N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3213 (McKinney 1992). Com/Tech proceeded under § 3213 and sought immediate judgment.
On June 9, 1997, Wireless removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Wireless then moved to compel Com/Tech to replead its allegations in the form of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wireless also sought to introduce certain counterclaims.
The district court declined to order repleading and refused to entertain the counterclaims, explaining that the assertion of those counterclaims would be inconsistent with the purpose of summary process under § 3213, which is supposed to be quick and simple. For that reason, the district court stated, claims that, as original claims, could not themselves qualify for...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP