Bragg v. Triangle Services, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-07725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bragg v. Triangle Services, Inc., Judge Vyskocil consolidated two cases, denied two requests, and set briefing deadlines.
The petitioners, including Kyle Bragg as trustee of the identified funds and plan, and Triangle Services, Inc. The order governs their two related arbitration-award proceedings, sets their briefing schedule, and requires further submissions in the first case.
What happened
Bragg v. Triangle Services, Inc. involves two petitions seeking confirmation of arbitration awards against Triangle Services, Inc. The first case was removed from New York state court to federal court, and the second was filed there directly.
The court consolidated the cases with the parties’ consent and ordered all future filings in the first case. It denied the request to treat the first petition as unopposed, denied the sanctions motion without prejudice, set deadlines for a consolidated motion and responses, and closed the second case.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also adjourned the previously scheduled conference and directed the parties to address sanctions in their briefing. This order did not decide whether the arbitration awards should be confirmed.
The detailed version
- Bragg v. Triangle Services, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-07725
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 28, 2025
Background
The first case began when the petitioners filed a petition in New York Supreme Court seeking confirmation of an arbitration award. Triangle Services, Inc. removed that case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York based on federal-question jurisdiction. The petitioners did not argue that removal was improper.
The petitioners argued that Triangle lost its opportunity to oppose the first petition because it removed the case on the deadline for filing an opposition in state court without filing an opposition at the same time. Triangle argued that, because the removal was proper, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governed the deadlines after removal. Triangle also sought permission to file a motion to vacate the arbitration award.
A second case, Kyle Bragg v. Triangle Services, Inc., No. 25-cv-62, involved a petition to confirm a second arbitration award. The parties consented to consolidating the second case with the first.
Court’s Actions
The court denied the petitioners’ request to treat the first petition as unopposed. The court relied on the preference for resolving disputes on their merits. The order did not decide whether either arbitration award should be confirmed or vacated.
The court consolidated No. 25-cv-62 with No. 24-cv-7725 and directed the parties to file all further submissions under No. 24-cv-7725. It ordered the petitioners to file a consolidated motion to confirm the arbitration awards by May 13, 2025. Triangle was ordered to respond by May 27, 2025, and any reply was due June 3, 2025.
The court denied the petitioners’ sanctions motion without prejudice because the motion did not comply with the court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases. The parties were directed to address sanctions in their briefing on the consolidated motion. The court also adjourned the previously scheduled May 1, 2025 conference, directed the clerk to file the order in both cases, terminated all pending motions in both cases, and closed No. 25-cv-62.
Result and Classification
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued a consolidation and scheduling order that resolved procedural requests but left the arbitration-confirmation issues for later briefing. The order’s dispositions were: the request to treat the first petition as unopposed was denied; the sanctions motion was denied without prejudice; and the second case was consolidated into the first and closed as a separate case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.