George Moudreas & Co SA v. Jinhai Intelligent Manufacturing Co Ltd
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-02626
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
George Moundreas v. Jinhai Intelligent Manufacturing, Judge Caproni denied Respondents’ motion to dismiss as moot after Moundreas filed an amended petition.
George Moundreas & Co SA and the Respondents, including HNA Group Co., Ltd., Hainan Airlines Holdings Co., Ltd., and Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd.; the motion to dismiss was no longer considered because the amended petition superseded the procedural posture addressed by that motion.
What happened
George Moundreas & Co SA asked the court to confirm a foreign arbitration award against Jinhai Intelligent Manufacturing Co Ltd. and others.
Respondents had moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3). Moundreas then filed an amended petition within 21 days of that motion.
Judge Valerie E. Caproni denied the motion to dismiss as moot. She set July 16, 2020, as the deadline for Respondents to respond to the amended petition and required the parties to propose a briefing schedule if Respondents intended to file a new dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- George Moudreas & Co SA v. Jinhai Intelligent Manufacturing Co Ltd · No. 1:20-cv-02626
- Valerie Caproni
- July 6, 2020
Background
George Moundreas & Co SA filed an amended petition seeking confirmation of a foreign arbitration award. The opinion identifies the respondents as HNA Group Co., Ltd., also known as Hainan Group HNA, LLC; Hainan Airlines Holdings Co., Ltd.; and Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd., collectively referred to as the Respondents. The caption also identifies Jinhai Intelligent Manufacturing Co Ltd. as formerly known as Jinhai Heavy Industry Co Ltd., along with other parties.
Procedural history
Respondents had filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3), which concern personal jurisdiction and venue. Moundreas filed the amended petition within 21 days after Respondents filed the motion. The court therefore treated the pending motion to dismiss as moot. The opinion also states that a letter-motion submitted by Moundreas violated the court’s individual practices because Moundreas did not contact Respondents about it or coordinate a telephone conference with chambers.
Ruling
Judge Valerie E. Caproni denied the motion to dismiss as moot. The court ordered Respondents to respond to the amended petition by July 16, 2020. If Respondents intended to file a new motion to dismiss, the parties had to meet and confer and jointly propose a briefing schedule by July 13, 2020. The order did not rule on the merits of the petition to confirm the foreign arbitration award.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.