Universitas Education, LLC v. Nova Group, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:11-cv-01590
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Universitas Education v. Nova Group, Judge Swain denied without prejudice letter motions seeking judgments against nonparties.
Universitas Education, LLC and the nonparties named in its letter motions—Moonstone Partners, LLC, Benistar Admin Services, Inc., and Molly Carpenter—were affected by the denial of the requested judgments.
What happened
Universitas Education, LLC asked the court to enter judgments against Moonstone Partners, LLC, Benistar Admin Services, Inc., and Molly Carpenter. The requests were made by letter motions.
The court denied the motions without prejudice because the requested relief was not among the matters that may be brought by letter motion under the local rule. The court said a formal motion could be filed under the applicable rules.
Judge Swain said any formal motion must address personal jurisdiction, whether the requested procedure could enforce the arbitration-award order against nonparties, limits on the court’s related jurisdiction, and the requested judgment amount after considering any amounts already recovered.
The detailed version
- Universitas Education, LLC v. Nova Group, Inc. · No. 1:11-cv-01590
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 31, 2020
Background
Universitas Education, LLC filed March 23, 2020 letter motions asking the court to enter judgments against Moonstone Partners, LLC, Benistar Admin Services, Inc. (BASI), and Molly Carpenter. Counsel for those parties opposed the requests in a March 30, 2020 letter. The court had previously entered a memorandum order confirming an arbitration award and had previously denied Universitas Education’s turnover motion.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that the requested relief was not among the applications that may be brought by letter motion under Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 7.1(d). The court therefore did not decide whether Universitas Education was entitled to judgments against the named nonparties.
The court identified issues that any later formal motion would need to address: the legal basis, if any, for personal jurisdiction over the nonparty entities; whether the proposed motion was the proper way to enforce the order confirming the arbitration award against parties that were not parties to the underlying litigation; whether the motion would comply with limits on the court’s related jurisdiction described in Peacock v. Thomas and the court’s earlier order; and the legal and factual basis for the requested judgment amount after accounting for any recoveries Universitas Education had already obtained.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the letter motions without prejudice to formal motion practice complying with the relevant federal, local, and individual court rules. The order did not rule on the merits of the requested judgments.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.