Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 7, 2025

Landaverde v. Genalo

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:25-cv-09330
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Landaverde v. Genalo, Judge Subramanian granted a temporary order barring transfer outside the Southern District of New York and set briefing deadlines.

Who this affects

Isaac Rogel Landaverde and the respondents, who may not transfer him outside the Southern District of New York without prior court approval while the order is in effect.

What happened

Isaac Rogel Landaverde asked the Southern District of New York for a temporary restraining order. The order does not describe the underlying dispute or explain why he sought the order.

The court granted the request. It barred the respondents from transferring Landaverde to any location outside the Southern District of New York without the court’s prior approval. The respondents must respond by November 12, 2025, and Landaverde may reply by November 14, 2025.

Judge Arun Subramanian issued the order on November 7, 2025. The court directed the parties to address whether an earlier decision, J.G.O. v. Francis, applies to the motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Landaverde v. Genalo · No. 1:25-cv-09330
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Nov. 7, 2025

Order

The court received Isaac Rogel Landaverde’s motion for a temporary restraining order, which is a short-term court order intended to prevent a specified action while the motion is being considered. The court granted the motion as follows:

1. The respondents are barred from transferring Landaverde to any location outside the Southern District of New York unless the court first approves the transfer. 2. The respondents must respond to the motion by November 12, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. Landaverde may file a reply by November 14, 2025, at 5:00 p.m.

The court directed the parties’ written submissions to address whether its decision in J.G.O. v. Francis, 2025 WL 3040142 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2025), applies. The order does not decide the ultimate merits of the dispute or explain the reasons for granting the temporary order.

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.