Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 21, 2020

Duffy v. Lydell Jewelry Design Studio

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:20-cv-00336
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
ArbitrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Duffy v. Lydell Jewelry Design Studio, Judge Abrams set deadlines for materials and responses on a petition to confirm an arbitration award.

Who this affects

The petitioner and the three named respondents are affected by the filing, response, reply, and service deadlines.

What happened

Duffy v. Lydell Jewelry Design Studio concerns a petition to confirm an arbitration award. The petitioner filed the operative petition on January 15, 2020, but had not yet filed proof that the respondents were served.

The court said confirmation proceedings are handled similarly to a motion for summary judgment. It ordered the petitioner to file and serve any additional supporting materials by February 5, 2020; any opposition was due March 4, 2020; and any reply was due March 11, 2020.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also ordered the petitioner to serve the respondents with a copy of the order. The order did not decide whether to confirm the arbitration award.

The detailed version

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

Case
Duffy v. Lydell Jewelry Design Studio · No. 1:20-cv-00336
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Jan. 21, 2020

Background

The petitioner filed an operative petition on January 15, 2020, seeking confirmation of an arbitration award against Lydell Jewelry Design Studio, LLC, Global Accessories Group, LLC, and John M. Higgins. The court noted that the petitioner had not yet docketed an affidavit of service.

Court’s Order

The court explained that proceedings to confirm arbitration awards are treated similarly to motions for summary judgment. Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the petitioner to file and serve any additional materials intended to support the petition by February 5, 2020. Any opposition from the respondents was due March 4, 2020, and any reply from the petitioner was due March 11, 2020.

The court also ordered the petitioner to serve a copy of the order on the respondents. The opinion does not decide whether the arbitration award should be confirmed; it sets filing and service requirements and briefing deadlines.

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.