Makhne v. Arrowood Indemnity Company
Stacy Makhne v. Arrowood Indemnity Company, Roach & Murtha Attorneys at Law, P.C., Timothy Murtha, Arrowpoint Capital Management, L.L.C., Arrowpoint Group, L.L.C., Arrowpoint Partners, L.P., John/Jane Does 1-20, Roach & Murtha, PC, One World Judicial Services Inc., Susan Cortina, Musab Nassar
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-01559
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Stacy Makhnevich v. Arrowood Indemnity, Magistrate Judge Figueredo lifted the stay because continued delay prejudiced Makhnevich.
The ruling allows Stacy Makhnevich’s federal case against Arrowood Indemnity Company and the other named defendants to proceed instead of remaining stayed; it does not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Stacy Makhnevich v. Arrowood Indemnity Company, the court reconsidered a stay that had paused the case while Arrowood Indemnity’s liquidation proceeding continued in Delaware. The case had not advanced beyond an amended complaint filed in October 2023.
Makhnevich, who was representing herself, asked the court to lift the stay. Arrowood Indemnity opposed the request, pointing to a Delaware Chancery Court order barring people from starting or continuing actions against Arrowood. Other defendants also requested that the stay remain in place.
The court lifted the stay. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo concluded that the liquidation proceeding was not nearing completion, the defendants had not shown that waiting would simplify this case, and continued delay could prejudice Makhnevich, who alleged that state-court judgments had placed a lien on her primary residence and restricted her ability to relocate.
The detailed version
- Makhne v. Arrowood Indemnity Company · No. 1:23-cv-01559
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
The court had stayed Stacy Makhnevich’s case on November 20, 2023, while a liquidation proceeding involving defendant Arrowood Indemnity Company continued in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Makhnevich filed the action on February 24, 2023, and an amended complaint on October 2, 2023. The case had not proceeded to discovery.
In July 2025, defendants One World Judicial Services Inc., Susan Cortina, and Musab Nassar reported that the liquidation proceeding was still ongoing and asked that the stay continue. Makhnevich asked the court to lift the stay. Arrowood opposed, relying on a Delaware Chancery Court order that enjoined people from starting or continuing legal actions against Arrowood.
The court’s analysis
The court explained that a federal district court has inherent authority to control the cases on its docket. Courts deciding whether to continue a stay weigh the plaintiff’s interest in proceeding promptly, the prejudice caused by delay, the burden on defendants, the interests of the court and nonparties, and the public interest. The party seeking a stay bears the burden of showing that it is needed.
The court found that continuing the stay was no longer appropriate. The liquidation proceeding remained ongoing, with no indication that it would end soon. The defendants also could not explain how waiting for that proceeding to finish would simplify Makhnevich’s case or create efficiencies. The court found no clear indication that proceeding would unduly burden the defendants.
The court also found that further delay would prejudice Makhnevich. Her claims appeared to arise from debt-collection efforts that led to a state-court default judgment. She alleged that judgments obtained by defendants resulted in a lien on her primary residence and created a cloud on her title that restricted her ability to relocate. The court additionally stated that it had an interest in bringing the case to a final resolution.
Ruling
The court held that the Delaware injunction did not prevent the federal court from hearing a claim within its jurisdiction. Although the injunction had supported a stay two years earlier, the court concluded that it no longer justified continued delay while the liquidation proceeding remained unresolved. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo therefore ordered that the stay in the case be lifted.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.