Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 14, 2020

Carnot v. Assistcare Home Health Services LLC

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:20-cv-03084
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
ArbitrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Carnot v. Assistcare, Judge Halpern stayed the action pending arbitration and administratively closed it while allowing either party to seek reopening.

Who this affects

Isabelle Carnot and Assistcare Home Health Services, LLC; the court case is paused while their agreed arbitration proceeds.

What happened

In Carnot v. Assistcare Home Health Services LLC, the parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute through a July 13, 2020 stipulation that the court approved on July 14.

The court stayed the lawsuit while arbitration proceeds. It also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion and administratively close the case, without preventing either party from asking to reopen it within 30 days after arbitration ends.

Judge Philip M. Halpern canceled all scheduled conferences and court appearances. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.

The detailed version

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

Case
Carnot v. Assistcare Home Health Services LLC · No. 7:20-cv-03084
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
July 14, 2020

Background

Isabelle Carnot sued Assistcare Home Health Services, LLC. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or the claims. The parties agreed by stipulation dated July 13, 2020, to arbitrate the dispute, and the court approved that agreement on July 14, 2020.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be stayed pending arbitration. A stay pauses the court case while another proceeding—in this case, arbitration—goes forward.

The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed as Doc. 12 and administratively close the case. The closure was without prejudice to either party moving by letter to reopen the case within 30 days after the arbitration proceedings conclude. The court also canceled all scheduled conferences and other court appearances.

Effect

The order moved the dispute to arbitration and did not resolve the underlying claims. It did not state a final outcome of the arbitration or explain what was in the terminated motion.

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.