In re ELETSON HOLDINGS INC., et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-05753
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: nna nese nna nese naan □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ KK DATE FILED:_10/14/2025

: 25-cv-5753 (LJL) In re ELETSON HOLDINGS INC., et al. : : MEMORANDUM AND : ORDER

wane KX LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: On June 25, 2025, an appeal was filed in this Court on behalf of a purported entity representing itself as “Provisional Eletson Holdings” of an Order of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Mastando, J.) authorizing and directing Microsoft to provide administrator-level access and create new accounts for Eletson Holdings, Inc. (“Holdings”). Dkt. No. |. Familiarity with the Bankruptcy Proceedings and related appeals is presumed. See In re Eletson Holdings Inc. et al., No. 23-10322 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (the “Bankruptcy Proceedings”); In re Eletson Holdings Inc., 2025 WL 2710411 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2025) (the “September 22 Decision”). On September 18, 2025, Appellee Holdings submitted a motion to dismiss the instant appeal and an accompanying memorandum of law. Dkt. Nos. 11, 12. “Provisional Eletson Holdings” submitted an opposition on October 6, 2025, Dkt. No. 17, to which Holdings replied on October 8, 2025, Dkt. No. 18. Briefly, this appeal concerns the Bankruptcy Court’s June 11, 2025, Order (and June 2 Oral Decision incorporated therein) stating that “Microsoft is authorized and directed to designate” a representative of Holdings as the “global administrator for the Microsoft account

related to . . . domain @eletson.com and the associated secondary domains.” Bankr. Dkt. No. 1691 (the “Microsoft Order”) ¶ 3. The Microsoft Order additionally permitted Microsoft and Holdings to “take all such actions as are necessary and appropriate to comply with the terms of this order.” Id. ¶ 4. In its Oral Decision on June 2, 2025, the Bankruptcy Court clarified that it issued the requested relief on the basis that Holdings “are the owners” of the Microsoft account,

and that pursuant to the “binding and effective” Confirmation Order of the Bankruptcy Court, “this information should have been exchanged pursuant to multiple prior orders of this Court.” Bankr. Dkt. No. 1695 at 30:22–31:4. “Provisional Eletson Holdings” argues that the Bankruptcy Court had no authority to issue the Microsoft Order because it was sought on an ex parte basis and because “Provisional Eletson Holdings’” appeal to the Second Circuit divested the Bankruptcy Court of jurisdiction over the issue. Dkt. No. 10 at 21. In its motion to dismiss, Holdings argues that the appeal must be dismissed because “Provisional Eletson Holdings” does not exist and therefore has no standing to appeal the Microsoft Order. Dkt. No. 12 at 5–10; Dkt. No. 18 at 1. This Court addressed this exact

question in resolving several related appeals in the September 22 Decision, holding that “Provisional Holdings is not a legal entity with standing to sue in this Court,” and that therefore its appeals were dismissed. Id. at *13. “[A]bsent a plaintiff with legal existence, there can be no Article III case or controversy.” Branch of Citibank, N.A. v. De Nevares, 74 F.4th 8, 15 (2d Cir. 2023) (quoting Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp., 991 F.3d 370, 384 (2d Cir. 2021)). “Provisional Eletson Holdings” acknowledges that this Court’s prior decision is dispositive here. Dkt. No. 17 at 1–2. Though the lawyers who filed this appeal are real, the entity on whose behalf they purport to speak is not. For the same reasons the Court elaborated in the September 22 Decision, it finds that “Provisional Eletson Holdings” has no legal existence and no standing to appeal orders of the Bankruptcy Court. See also In re Peters, 642 F.3d 381, 386 (2d Cir. 2011) (the law of the case doctrine “counsels a court against revisiting its prior rulings in subsequent stages of the same case absent ‘cogent’ and compelling’ reasons,” including “the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”’) Accordingly, Holdings’ motion to dismiss the appeal of “Provisional Eletson Holdings” appeal in Dkt. No. 25-cv-5753 is granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close Dkt. No. 11 and to terminate the appeal.

SO ORDERED. Pa Dated: October 14, 2025 New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge