The Resource Group International Limited v. Chishti

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: March 7, 2023
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01760
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

OVITLIED SDIEFCEN GW AAMILIUN LLP RICHARD J. COOPER LILLIANTSU ARON M. ZUCKERMAN JEFFREY S. LEWIS AMY R. SHAPIRO KENNETH S. BLAZEJEWSKI PAUL J. SHIM JENNIFER KENNEDY PARK MARK E. MCDONALD 5 Davie. LOPEZ LUKEA BAREFOOT PAUL □ □□□□□□□□□ One Liberty Plaza MICHAEL A. GERSTENZANG JONATHAN S. KOLODNER CLAYTON SIMMONS LEV L. DASSIN DANIEL ILAN CHARLES W. ALLEN New York, NY 10006-1470 WICHAELD.WEINBERGER ADRIAN LEIPSIC HELENA □□□□□□□□ T: +1212 225 2000 SEPEREY A ROSENTHAL ADAM) BRENNEMAN THOWAS 8 KESSLER MICHAEL D. DAYAN ARID, MACKINNON □□□□□□□□ PARTNERS Fs +1 212 225 3999 SEFPREVOLKARPE = ameDGEROER □□□ Kas JEFFREY O. K, F Ji JUOITH KASSEL eeceerli daar FRANCESCAL OUELL” ANE VANLARE tows wore YB SASON FACTOR ELIZABETH OYER ANDREW □□□□□□ JOON H. KIM DAVID H. HERRINGTON JOHN V. HARRISON MARGARET S, PEPONIS KIMBERLY R. SPOERRI MATTHEW SRIGHAM ee ae | Se ee a JUANG GIRALOEZ DANIEL C. REYNOLDS CAURA BAGARELLA NEW YORK BEIJING ABUDHABI — LONDON CHANTALE KORDULA HUGH CONROY. JR paviows □□□ SAN FRANCISCO HONG KONG BRUSSELS MILAN BENET J. O'REILLY JOHN A. KUPIEC KARA A. HAILEY sA0 PAULO SEOUL COLOGNE PARIS ADAM E. FLEISHER JOSEPH LANZKRON ANNA KOGAN iets sete GLenN'p MCGRORY KATHERINE R REAVES SRIAWD MORRIS DEBORAH NORTH RAHUL MUKHi CARINA S. WALLANCE WARNED MICHAEL. ALBAN MANUEL SILVA oo VICTOR HOU KYLE A. HARRIS

D: +1 212 225 2333 memcdonald@cgsh.com March 6, 2023 VIA ECF SS □ + + USDC SDNY oe, eat DOCUMENT nited States District Judge : a, i ee | ELECTRONICALLY FILE) Daniel Patrick Moynihan por United States Courthouse | la 500 Pearl St. DATE FILED: 3/9 □ ra □□ New York, NY 10007 ——>—————————_—_ Re: The Resource Group International Limited, et al. v. Chishti, No. 23-cv-1760 Dear Judge Stanton: We write on behalf of plaintiffs The Resource Group International Limited (“TRG-I’), TRG Pakistan Limited (“TRG-P”), Mohammed Khaishgi and Hasnain Aslam (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in the above-captioned action. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal today from this Court’s order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction staying the arbitration initiated by Defendant Muhammad Ziaullah Khan Chishti (“Defendant”). See Order, TRG-I et al. v. Chishti, No. 23-cv-1760 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2023) (ECF No. 22) (the “Order’).

ei 2a 15 thy. mepheec tine {ov a 4 Vey pend 1% ae □□□□□□□ hemud : fa hack “\ _ : ( 2. ws Avan □□□ “Aa stay , amd fa Aake. r) ee ")

: a, Ghod, 4 ager > ie, “ A ay Adah css heres prerecdimg Se Ondencd, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP or an affiliated entity has an office in each of the locations listed above. A □ □□□

Hon. Louis L, Stanton, p. 2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(C), Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court for a temporary injunction pending the Second Circuit’s consideration of Plaintiffs’ appeal of the Court’s Order. Plaintiffs also intend to file an emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal in the Court of Appeals, but present that request to this Court in the first instance in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1). See Uniformed Fire Officers Ass'n v. de Blasio, 973 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 2020) (noting that first moving in the district court for an injunction pending appeal “is normally required”); Agudath Israel of Am. v. Cuomo, 979 F.3d 177, 179 (2d Cir. 2020) (finding that appellant had failed to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(C) when it “did not ‘move first in the district court’” for an injunction pending appeal) (quoting Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(C)). The standard for an injunction pending appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(C) is identical to the standard this Court applied in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. See LaRouche v. Kezer, 20 F.3d 68, 73 (2d Cir. 1994) (holding that the “standard for preliminary injunctions, similar to the standard for injunctions pending appeal, dictates a weighing of the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, the balance of equities and the public interest”). For that reason and in the interest of judicial economy, Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate their prior submission and oral argument and respectfully request that this Court rule on Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction pending appeal based on all parties’ prior written submissions and argument at the hearing held on March 2. See Pls.’ Mem. of Law, TRG-I et al. v. Chishti, No. 23-1760 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2023) (ECF No. 10); Def.’s Mem. of Law in Opp’n, TRG-J et al. v. Chishti, No. 23-1760 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2023) (ECF No. 21); Mar. 2, 2023 Hr’g Tr. (Exhibit A). Should the Court require additional briefing, Plaintiffs would be prepared to file their motion papers within one business day of being directed to do so by the Court, and would waive reply. We thank the Court for its consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

vm Rr Mark E. McDonald S. Gale Dick Counsel for TRG-I, Mohammed Khaishgi Counsel for TRG-P and Hasnain Aslam

ce: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)