Hiteks Solutions, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A.

S.D. New York

Hiteks Solutions, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A.

DecidedMay 12, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00200

StatusUnknown

This text of Hiteks Solutions, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A. (Hiteks Solutions, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A.) 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

Hiteks Solutions, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

HITEKS SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, 25-CV-200 (JPO) -v- ORDER CITIBANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: On March 25, 2025, the Court ordered Defendant Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) to file its anticipated motion to compel arbitration by April 7, 2025, and that Plaintiff Hiteks Solutions, Inc. (“Hiteks”) would file its opposition by April 21, 2025 and Citibank would file its reply by April 28, 2025. (ECF No. 15; see ECF No. 13.) Citibank filed the motion, and Hiteks opposed, pursuant to that schedule. (ECF Nos. 16, 20.) Then, instead of filing a reply, Citibank submitted a letter on April 24, 2025—more than two weeks after its deadline to file a motion to compel arbitration—seeking to withdraw its original motion and file a corrected motion identifying an earlier agreement to arbitrate. (ECF No. 21.) Hiteks opposes that request. (ECF No. 22.) “It is well established that district courts possess the ‘inherent power’ and responsibility to manage their dockets ‘so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 722 F.3d 483, 487 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). Given the stage of briefing at this point and Citibank’s forfeiture of reliance on the prior arbitration agreement in its motion, the Court grants Citibank leave to withdraw and refile its motion to compel arbitration only if it reimburses Hiteks for the attorney’s fees and costs expended in opposing the original motion. If Citibank elects to withdraw and refile its motion to compel arbitration, Citibank shall file the new motion on or before May 16, 2025. Hiteks shall file an opposition on or before May 30, 2025. Citibank shall file a reply on or before June 6, 2025. If Citibank elects to rely on its original motion to compel arbitration, Citibank shall file a reply in further support of that motion on or before May 16, 2025. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 12, 2025 New York, New York

| ] J. PAUL OETKEN United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

HITEKS SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, 25-CV-200 (JPO) -v- ORDER CITIBANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: On March 25, 2025, the Court ordered Defendant Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) to file its anticipated motion to compel arbitration by April 7, 2025, and that Plaintiff Hiteks Solutions, Inc. (“Hiteks”) would file its opposition by April 21, 2025 and Citibank would file its reply by April 28, 2025. (ECF No. 15; see ECF No. 13.) Citibank filed the motion, and Hiteks opposed, pursuant to that schedule. (ECF Nos. 16, 20.) Then, instead of filing a reply, Citibank submitted a letter on April 24, 2025—more than two weeks after its deadline to file a motion to compel arbitration—seeking to withdraw its original motion and file a corrected motion identifying an earlier agreement to arbitrate. (ECF No. 21.) Hiteks opposes that request. (ECF No. 22.) “It is well established that district courts possess the ‘inherent power’ and responsibility to manage their dockets ‘so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 722 F.3d 483, 487 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). Given the stage of briefing at this point and Citibank’s forfeiture of reliance on the prior arbitration agreement in its motion, the Court grants Citibank leave to withdraw and refile its motion to compel arbitration only if it reimburses Hiteks for the attorney’s fees and costs expended in opposing the original motion. If Citibank elects to withdraw and refile its motion to compel arbitration, Citibank shall file the new motion on or before May 16, 2025. Hiteks shall file an opposition on or before May 30, 2025. Citibank shall file a reply on or before June 6, 2025. If Citibank elects to rely on its original motion to compel arbitration, Citibank shall file a reply in further support of that motion on or before May 16, 2025. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 12, 2025 New York, New York

| ] J. PAUL OETKEN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hiteks Solutions, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hiteks-solutions-inc-v-citibank-na-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack