Southfield Capital, LP v. Stonington Capital Advisors, LLC

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 29, 2024·No. 1:24-cv-06269·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHFIELD CAPITAL, LP, DOC DATE FILED: _ 8/28/2024 Petitioner, -against- 24 Civ. 6269 (AT) STONINGTON CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC and ORDER STONINGTON DRIVE SECURITIES LLC, Respondents. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: On August 20, 2024, Petitioner filed a petition to confirm an arbitration award. ECF No. 1; see also ECF No. 3. Proceedings to confirm an arbitration award must be “treated as akin to a motion for summary judgment.” D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 109 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly: 1. By September 30, 2024, Petitioner shall file and serve a statement pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 and any additional materials with which Petitioner intends to support the petition; 2. By October 14, 2024, Respondents shall file their opposition papers or a statement of non-opposition; and 3. By October 21, 2024, Petitioner shall file its reply, if any. The Court is also in receipt of Petitioner’s statement of relatedness. ECF No. 12. Under Rule 13(a)(2)(B) of the Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges, “civil cases presumptively shall not be deemed related unless both cases are pending before the court (or the earlier case is on appeal).” Here, the earlier case, No. 20 Civ. 6053, is closed. The Court, therefore, shall retain this matter. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 28, 2024 New York, New York

ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

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

Southfield Capital, LP v. Stonington Capital Advisors, LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Southfield Capital, LP v. Stonington Capital Advisors, LLC (Southfield Capital, LP v. Stonington Capital Advisors, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener
462 F.3d 95 (Second Circuit, 2006)