Opinions and documents
a a a ae Andrew R. Spector, Partner
= Ke i □□ a Ps iN Admitted in Florida, New York and Texas
Ta IRAE WSs EE ays Direct phone: 305.537.2002
Direct fax: 305.537.2001
andrew.spector@spectorrubin.com
October 29, 2025
VIA ECF
The Honorable John P. Cronan
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street, Room 1320
New York, New York 10007
Re: DSV Air & Sea Inc. v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.
Southern District of New York Case No. 1:25-cv-05047-JPC
Dear Judge Cronan,
The undersigned counsel represents Plaintiff, DSV Air & Sea Inc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”
and/or “DSV”), in the above-referenced case. Pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Practices {
3(B) and this Court’s Order [ECF 14], DSV respectfully requests a ninety (90) day stay of the case
pending a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit involving
substantially similar issues that have a bearing on the issues in this case. HDI Global Insurance
Co. v. Kuehne + Nagel Inc., Case No. 25-531 (2d Cir. 2025). The foregoing request is respectfully
submitted with the consent of counsel for Defendant, MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.
(hereinafter “Defendant” and/or “MSC”). The Parties will respectfully submit a status report
and/or proposed Revised Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order prior to the close of the
requested ninety (90) day stay on or before January 27, 2026.
As this Court is aware, the underlying transactions and occurrences involve alleged
damages to a shipment of goods during international ocean transit from Norfolk, Virgina to Jebel
Ali, United Arab Emirates during April 2024. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to maintain
the requested temperature setting and as a result the cargo was allegedly damaged. In turn, MSC
advances defenses under the sea waybills and pursuant to U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
(““COGSA”) 46 U.S.C. § 30701, et seq. under § 1304(5) of COGSA. Pursuant thereto, MSC
advances that its liability is limited to $500 per package and that the number of pallets constitutes
the applicable COGSA package rather than the number of cartons. This is the central issue for this
case.
The Parties are aware of a case pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit involving this exact issue as to whether the number of pallets or cartons constitutes
the COGSA package. HDI Global Insurance Co. v. Kuehne + Nagel Inc., Case No. 25-531 (2d
Cir. 2025). There, the parties have submitted their appellate briefs and have requested oral
argument. However, oral argument has not yet been granted and/or scheduled. Accordingly, the
Parties in the instant action continue to diligently monitor the docket in the aforementioned case.
The Parties anticipate that a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
3250 Mary Street, Suite 405, Miami, Florida 33133
11 Broadway, Suite 615, New York, New York 10004
The Honorable John P. Cronan
United States District Judge
October 29, 2025
Page 2
will resolve the central issue in the instant action, and allow for the Parties to reach an amicable
resolution of the instant matter.
Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request a ninety (90) day stay of the instant action up
to and including January 30, 2026, pending a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
SPECTOR RUBIN, P.A.
Andrew Spector
Andrew R. Spector
ce: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)
The parties’ request for a stay through January 30, 2026, is granted. See
Kappel v. Comfort, 914 F. Supp. 1056 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). The parties shall
jointly file a letter as to the status of the Second Circuit appeal and the
continued propriety of a stay by January 30, 2026. The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to close Docket Number 15.
SO ORDERED.
Date: October 30, 2025 ——OHNP CRONAN
New York, New York United States District Judge
3250 Mary Street, Suite 405, Miami, Florida 33133
11 Broadway, Suite 615, New York, New York 10004
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.