Alcazar Capital Partners Company v. Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 23, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-00186
StatusUnknown

This text of Alcazar Capital Partners Company v. Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq (Alcazar Capital Partners Company v. Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alcazar Capital Partners Company v. Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ALCAZAR CAPITAL PARTNERS Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00186-AS COMPANY, The Honorable Judge Arun Subramanian Plaintiff, v. KURDISTAN REGIONAL GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ, Defendant. NOTICE OF MOTION TO STAY OF DEFENDANT KURDISTAN REGIONAL GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq will move this Court at Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, to stay the above-referenced action pending the Kuwaiti courts’ resolution of the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq’s request for reconsideration of the judgment of the Kuwait Court of Appeals for which Plaintiff Alcazar Capital Partners Company seeks recognition in this Court. The grounds for this motion are fully set forth in the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq’s accompanying memorandum of law and the declaration of Sally Pei in support thereof with accompanying exhibit. Dated: March 20, 2024 Respectfully submitted, The motion to stay this case is GRANTED. The ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP Court finds that the relevant factors favor a stay, as the Kuwaiti proceeding concerns the validity of the —/s/ John B. Bellinger, II judgment that Plaintiff is trying to enforce here. See John B. Bellinger, III, pro hac vice Tarazi v. Truehope Inc., 958 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 Sally Pei, pro hac vice (S.D.N.Y. 2013). A stay promotes efficiency Sean A. Mirski, pro hac vice because the Kuwaiti court could vacate the Aaron X. Sobel, pro hac vice judgment, meaning this case would likely be 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW dismissed and any resources poured into it would Washington, DC 20001-3743 be all for naught. A stay also avoids potentially (202) 942-5000 inconsistent results. Plus, both parties seem to agree John.Bellinger@arnoldporter.com that the Kuwaiti court is likely to decide the Sally.Pei@arnoldporter.com pending motion by the end of June, meaning that Sean.Mirski@amoldporter.com this stay is unlikely to prolong litigation much. And Aaron.Sobel@arnoldporter.com Plaintiff is to be compensated for the delay, as the . . . . . . James D. Herschlein judgment includes post-judgment interest. Finally, 450 West 55th Street the underlying payment default occurred more than New York. NY 10019-9710 13 years before Plaintiff took action to collect on (212) 83 6-8000 the guarantee. This Court does not find that there James.Herschlein@arnoldporter.com would be prejudice from a short, additional stay. R. Reeves Anderson, pro hac vice Because of the stay, the motion to dismiss is denied Adrienne Boyd, pro hac vice without prejudice; the KRG can refile this motion 1144 Fifteenth Street, Suite 3100 once the stay 1s lifted. In addition, the motion to Denver, CO 80202-2848 seal is granted. The documents may remain under (303) 863-1000 seal for now, but once the stay is lifted, the motion Reeves.Anderson@arnoldporter.com should be refiled if the documents are refiled under Adrienne.Boyd@arnoldporter.com seal, at which time the Court will consider the motion on its merits. The parties should provide a joint update to the Court on the Kuwaiti proceedings every 30 days. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at Dkts. 55, 56, and 60 and to stay this case. SO ORDERED.

Arun Subramanian, U.S.D.J. Date: April 23, 2024

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 20, 2024, a copy of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of Court through the CM/ECF system, which sent notice of the filing to all appearing parties of record.

Dated: March 20, 2024 /s/ John B. Bellinger, III John B. Bellinger, III

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tarazi v. Truehope Inc.
958 F. Supp. 2d 428 (S.D. New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Alcazar Capital Partners Company v. Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alcazar-capital-partners-company-v-kurdistan-regional-government-of-iraq-nysd-2024.