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

Laura v. Pristec AG

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:20-cv-01364
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
ArbitrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Laura v. Pristec AG, Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered briefing and service steps for a petition seeking confirmation of an arbitration award.

Who this affects

The petitioners and Pristec AG, the respondent in the arbitration-award confirmation proceeding.

What happened

In Laura v. Pristec AG, Joseph Laura and Anthony Sichenzio filed a complaint seeking confirmation of an arbitration award involving Pristec AG.

The court noted that the petitioners had not yet filed an affidavit showing that Pristec AG had been served. It also explained that arbitration-award confirmation proceedings are handled similarly to motions for summary judgment.

Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the petitioners to file and serve supporting materials by March 6, 2020. Any opposition was due April 3, and any reply was due April 17. The petitioners also had to serve the order on Pristec AG.

The detailed version

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

Case
Laura v. Pristec AG · No. 1:20-cv-01364
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Feb. 21, 2020

Background

Joseph Laura and Anthony Sichenzio, acting derivatively on behalf of Pristec America, Inc. (NJ), Pristect America, Inc. (New), and Innovative Crude Technologies, filed a complaint seeking confirmation of an arbitration award. The opinion states that the complaint was filed on February 18, 2020. The petitioners had not yet docketed an affidavit of service.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that proceedings to confirm arbitration awards must be treated similarly to a motion for summary judgment. The order did not decide whether the arbitration award should be confirmed.

Order

Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the petitioners to file and serve any additional materials supporting their petition by March 6, 2020. Pristec AG’s opposition, if any, was due April 3, 2020, and the petitioners’ reply, if any, was due April 17, 2020. The petitioners were also ordered to serve a copy of the order on Pristec AG.

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.