Kyle Bragg v. Triangle Services, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-00062
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kyle Bragg v. Triangle Services, Judge Vyskocil consolidated the cases, denied two requests, and set briefing deadlines.
Kyle Bragg, the other petitioners in the first case, and Triangle Services, Inc.; the order also affected the handling and schedule of both related cases.
What happened
Kyle Bragg and other petitioners asked the court to confirm arbitration awards against Triangle Services, Inc. One case had been removed from New York state court, and another involved a second arbitration award.
The petitioners argued that Triangle had lost its chance to oppose the first petition because it removed the case without filing an opposition by the state-court deadline. The court rejected that request, consolidated the two cases with the parties’ consent, and directed the parties to file future submissions in the older case.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered a consolidated motion to confirm the arbitration awards and set opposition and reply deadlines. She denied the petitioners’ sanctions motion without prejudice, postponed the scheduled conference indefinitely, and closed case number 25-cv-62.
The detailed version
- Kyle Bragg v. Triangle Services, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-00062
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 28, 2025
Background
The petitioners in the related case, Bragg et al. v. Triangle Services, Inc., No. 24-cv-7725, began that action by filing a petition in New York Supreme Court to confirm an arbitration award. Triangle Services, Inc. removed the action to the federal court, citing federal-question jurisdiction. The petitioners did not challenge the removal.
The petitioners argued that Triangle forfeited its opportunity to oppose the first petition because Triangle removed the case on the state-court deadline for filing an opposition without filing an opposition at the same time. Triangle argued that, after proper removal, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governed the deadlines. Triangle also sought permission to file a motion to vacate the arbitration award.
A second petition to confirm another arbitration award had been filed in case number 25-cv-62. The order addressed both cases.
Rulings and Scheduling Orders
The court denied the petitioners’ request to treat the first petition as unopposed. The court explained that the appellate court has a strong preference for resolving disputes on their merits.
With the consent of all parties, the court ordered case number 25-cv-62 consolidated with case number 24-cv-7725. The court directed the parties to file all future submissions under case number 24-cv-7725.
The court ordered the petitioners to file a consolidated motion to confirm the arbitration awards by May 13, 2025. Triangle Services, Inc. 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 it did not comply with the court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases. The court directed both sides to address sanctions in their briefing on the consolidated motion. It also adjourned the previously scheduled May 1, 2025 conference indefinitely, directed the Clerk to file the order in both cases, terminated all pending motions in both cases, and closed case number 25-cv-62.
Classification
This is a procedural order. It consolidated related cases, ruled on whether one petition should be treated as unopposed, addressed a sanctions motion, and set a schedule, but it did not decide whether the arbitration awards should be confirmed or vacated.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.