Citibank, N.A. v. Aralpa Holdings Limited Partnership and Rodrigo Lebois Mateos
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-08842
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Citibank v. Aralpa, Judge Rochon extended a temporary restraining order against Aralpa Investments LLC for 14 days and closed the motion.
Citibank, N.A.; Aralpa Investments, LLC; Rodrigo Lebois Mateos; One57 36B LLC; and Ford O’Brien Landy LLP.
What happened
In Citibank, N.A. v. Aralpa Holdings Limited Partnership and Rodrigo Lebois Mateos, Citibank asked the court to extend an existing temporary restraining order against Aralpa Investments, LLC or issue a new one.
The court said Aralpa Investments remained bound by earlier temporary restraining orders and expressly extended the order for 14 more days. The court found good cause because Citibank had shown likely irreparable harm without the order and a likelihood of success on its claims.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon also directed Ford O’Brien Landy LLP to clarify whether it represents Aralpa Investments, promptly file a notice of appearance if so, and confirm Aralpa Investments’ consent to the extension. The clerk was directed to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Citibank, N.A. v. Aralpa Holdings Limited Partnership and Rodrigo Lebois Mateos · No. 1:22-cv-08842
- Rochon
- Sept. 9, 2025
Background
Citibank submitted a letter asking the Court either to extend a temporary restraining order against Aralpa Investments, LLC for good cause or to issue a new temporary restraining order. The opinion states that Aralpa Investments was already bound by an earlier temporary restraining order and by an order extending that restraint, based on Rodrigo Lebois Mateos’s representation that Aralpa Investments would comply with an extended order.
Ruling
The Court expressly extended the temporary restraining order against Aralpa Investments for an additional 14 days. It found good cause because Citibank had demonstrated irreparable harm without the order and a likelihood of success on the merits. A temporary restraining order is a short-term court order preserving the situation while a dispute proceeds.
The Court directed Ford O’Brien Landy LLP to clarify promptly whether it represents Aralpa Investments, file a notice of appearance promptly if it does, and confirm that Aralpa Investments consents to an extension for the same period that Rodrigo Lebois Mateos and One57 36B LLC are enjoined. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon directed the clerk to close the motion at docket entry 216.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.