Chicago Insurance Company v. General Reinsurance Corporation
- James Oetken
- 1:18-cv-10450
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chicago Insurance v. General Reinsurance, Judge Oetken denied Chicago Insurance’s motion to stay an earlier order.
Chicago Insurance Company’s motion was denied; the order concerned whether proceedings involving the 2017 arbitration panel would be paused.
What happened
In Chicago Insurance Company v. General Reinsurance Corporation, Chicago Insurance asked the court to pause its October 22, 2019, order while litigation involving a 2017 arbitration panel continued.
The court said Chicago Insurance had not strongly shown that it was likely to succeed or that it would suffer legally recognized, irreparable harm without a stay. The court also said the time and money required for arbitration did not qualify as irreparable harm.
Judge Oetken denied the motion to stay and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Chicago Insurance Company v. General Reinsurance Corporation · No. 1:18-cv-10450
- James Oetken
- Nov. 14, 2019
Background
On November 11, 2019, Chicago Insurance Company filed a letter motion asking the court to stay, or pause, its October 22, 2019, Opinion and Order. The opinion refers to litigation before a 2017 arbitration panel but does not describe the underlying dispute in detail.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that the most important factors in deciding whether to grant a stay are whether the applicant has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits and whether it will suffer irreparable harm without a stay. The court concluded that Chicago Insurance had not made the required showing of likely success and had cited no case law that persuaded the court otherwise.
The court also rejected Chicago Insurance’s claimed harm from having to spend time and money litigating before the 2017 arbitration panel. Citing Second Circuit authority, the court held that the monetary cost of arbitration is not legally recognized irreparable harm. Because Chicago Insurance identified no other possible source of irreparable harm, the court found none.
Disposition
The court denied Chicago Insurance’s motion to stay and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 53. This order addressed the request for a stay rather than the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.