Yosemite Insurance Co. v. ROM Reinsurance Management Co., Inc.
- Ho
- 1:24-cv-04551
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Yosemite Insurance v. ROM Reinsurance, Judge Ho set deadlines for materials and responses on a petition to stay arbitration.
Yosemite Insurance Co. must provide supporting materials and serve the petition and order; ROM Reinsurance Management Co., Inc. may file an opposition by the specified deadline.
What happened
In Yosemite Insurance Co. v. ROM Reinsurance Management Co., Inc., Yosemite Insurance Co. filed a petition to stay arbitration on June 13, 2024. The order states that motions to stay arbitration are evaluated under the summary-judgment standard.
The court required Yosemite Insurance Co. to file and serve any additional supporting materials by July 8, 2024. ROM Reinsurance Management Co., Inc.’s opposition, if any, was due July 29, and Yosemite Insurance Co.’s reply, if any, was due August 5.
Judge Dale E. Ho also required Yosemite Insurance Co. to serve the petition, supporting papers, and the order under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by July 8, and to file proof of service by July 9. The order did not decide whether arbitration should be stayed.
The detailed version
- Yosemite Insurance Co. v. ROM Reinsurance Management Co., Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-04551
- Ho
- June 17, 2024
Background
Yosemite Insurance Co. filed a petition to stay arbitration on June 13, 2024. The court stated that courts apply the summary-judgment standard to motions to stay arbitration.
Deadlines and Service
The court ordered Yosemite Insurance Co. to file and serve any additional materials supporting its petition by July 8, 2024. ROM Reinsurance Management Co., Inc.’s opposition, if any, was due July 29, 2024. Yosemite Insurance Co.’s reply, if any, was due August 5, 2024.
Yosemite Insurance Co. also had to serve the petition, all supporting papers, and the order on ROM Reinsurance Management Co., Inc. under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than July 8, 2024. It had to file an affidavit confirming service by July 9, 2024.
Ruling
Judge Dale E. Ho issued a scheduling and service order. The order did not grant or deny the petition to stay arbitration and did not otherwise resolve the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.