Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 12, 2020

Hohns v. Mariner Investment Group, LLC

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:19-cv-08654
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureArbitration
In one sentence

In Hohns v. Mariner Investment Group, Judge Torres stayed the action for 60 days while the parties finalized a settlement and paused pending motions.

Who this affects

Andrew Hohns and Mariner Investment Group, LLC; the case was paused for 60 days, and the pending motions were not decided during that period.

What happened

In Hohns v. Mariner Investment Group, Andrew Hohns and Mariner Investment Group jointly asked the court to pause the case for 60 days while they worked to turn an agreement in principle into a final settlement.

The requested pause included the court’s consideration of the parties’ pending motions to compel arbitration and motions to dismiss. The parties said they planned to dismiss the action after finalizing written settlement agreements, but the court did not decide those motions or the underlying dispute.

Judge Analisa Torres ordered that the action be stayed for 60 days so the parties could finalize a settlement agreement. She also directed the parties to submit a joint status letter by a date shown in the order as “11, 2020”; the month is unclear in the opinion text.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hohns v. Mariner Investment Group, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-08654
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Mar. 12, 2020

Background

Plaintiff Andrew Hohns and defendant Mariner Investment Group, LLC jointly requested a 60-day stay, meaning a temporary pause, while they worked toward a final settlement agreement. Their counsel stated that the parties had reached an agreement in principle, executed a term sheet, and were preparing definitive written agreements. They also stated that the settlement would resolve the issues in this action and an underlying arbitration proceeding.

Pending Motions

The requested stay included pausing the court’s decision on the parties’ pending cross-motions to compel arbitration and motions to dismiss. The parties represented that, after completing the settlement documents, the action would be voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. That representation was made by the parties; the opinion does not state that the dismissal had occurred.

Ruling

Judge Analisa Torres ordered: “The action is STAYED for 60 days” to give the parties time to finalize a settlement agreement. The court also directed the parties to submit a joint status letter by a date rendered in the opinion as “11, 2020.” The opinion does not identify the month for that deadline. The court did not rule on the pending arbitration or dismissal motions and did not decide the merits of the dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.