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

Mitsubishi International Corporation v. New Heaven Chemicals Iowa LLC

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:20-cv-01317
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
ArbitrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mitsubishi International Corporation v. New Haven Chemicals Iowa LLC, Judge Torres set briefing and service deadlines for a petition to confirm an arbitration award.

Who this affects

Mitsubishi International Corporation, New Haven Chemicals Iowa LLC, and TSS Group.

What happened

Mitsubishi International Corporation v. New Haven Chemicals Iowa LLC and TSS Group concerns Mitsubishi’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, filed on February 14, 2020.

The court explained that proceedings to confirm an arbitration award are handled like a request for summary judgment. It ordered Mitsubishi to submit supporting materials, gave the respondents time to oppose the petition, and allowed Mitsubishi to reply.

Judge Analisa Torres also ordered Mitsubishi to serve the petition and the order on the respondents and the New York secretary of state, then file proof of service. 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
Mitsubishi International Corporation v. New Heaven Chemicals Iowa LLC · No. 1:20-cv-01317
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Feb. 21, 2020

Background

Mitsubishi International Corporation filed a petition on February 14, 2020, asking the court to confirm an arbitration award against New Haven Chemicals Iowa LLC and TSS Group. The order states that proceedings to confirm an arbitration award are treated like a motion for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment based on the submitted evidence without a trial.

Briefing Schedule

The court ordered Mitsubishi to file and serve a statement required by Local Civil Rule 56.1 and any additional supporting materials by March 20, 2020. Those materials could include legal memoranda, the arbitration award, supporting documents, and affidavits or declarations stating that exhibits are true and correct copies.

The respondents’ opposition was due April 10, 2020. Mitsubishi’s reply, if any, was due April 24, 2020.

Service Requirement and Disposition

The court also ordered Mitsubishi to serve the petition and the order on the respondents by March 6, 2020, using the methods described in New York law. Mitsubishi was additionally required to serve the New York secretary of state and file an affidavit proving service by March 11, 2020.

This order set deadlines and service requirements. It did not rule on whether the arbitration award should be confirmed.

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.