Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 26, 2025

Malato v. DigitalOcean LLC

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:25-cv-02319
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
ArbitrationCivil ProcedureSummary Judgment
In one sentence

In Malato v. DigitalOcean, Judge Failla ordered the petitioner to seek vacatur of an arbitration award through a summary-judgment motion.

Who this affects

Guido Malato must present his request to vacate the arbitration award as a summary-judgment motion; DigitalOcean LLC may oppose it according to the court’s schedule.

What happened

In Malato v. DigitalOcean LLC, Guido Malato filed a petition seeking to vacate an arbitration award.

The court treated the petition as something that must proceed like a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and the Southern District of New York’s local rule.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered Malato to file that motion by April 21, 2025, set DigitalOcean’s opposition deadline for May 19, 2025, and set Malato’s reply deadline for June 2, 2025. The order did not decide whether the award should be vacated.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Malato v. DigitalOcean LLC · No. 1:25-cv-02319
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Mar. 26, 2025

Background

On March 20, 2025, Guido Malato filed a petition seeking to vacate an arbitration award. DigitalOcean LLC is the respondent.

Court’s ruling

The court stated that proceedings to confirm or vacate an arbitration award must be treated as similar to a motion for summary judgment. It therefore ordered Malato to move for vacatur in the form of a summary-judgment motion under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 56.1 of the Southern District of New York.

The court set these deadlines:

- Malato’s motion: April 21, 2025 - DigitalOcean’s opposition, if any: May 19, 2025 - Malato’s reply, if any: June 2, 2025

The order addressed the procedure and schedule for presenting the petition. It did not rule on whether the arbitration award should be vacated.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.