Reed v. Rmbs Reo Holdings, LLC
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-05891
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Reed v. RMBS Reo Holdings, LLC, Judge Cave denied Reed’s request without prejudice while the court considered the respondent’s dismissal motion.
John K. Reed’s request for payment, interest, costs, expenses, and related relief was denied without prejudice; the respondent’s motion to dismiss remained unresolved.
What happened
In John K. Reed v. RMBS REO Holdings, LLC, Reed, representing himself, asked the court to confirm an arbitration award and later requested payment, interest, and costs. The court had extended his deadline to serve the respondent.
Before the respondent answered, Reed filed a request seeking the arbitration award’s amount, additional interest, and expenses. The respondent moved to dismiss the petition and to vacate the arbitration award as invalid on its face.
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied Reed’s request without prejudice because the respondent’s dismissal motion could affect the validity of the arbitration award, making any amendment or damages analysis premature. The order did not decide the dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- Reed v. Rmbs Reo Holdings, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-05891
- George Daniels
- Dec. 7, 2020
Background
John K. Reed filed a petition seeking to confirm an arbitration award. On August 5, 2020, Judge George B. Daniels ordered Reed to serve RMBS REO Holdings, LLC within the required period and warned that failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court later extended Reed’s service deadline to December 21, 2020. Judge Daniels referred the action to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for general pretrial matters and dispositive motions.
Reed’s Request
Before RMBS REO Holdings answered or otherwise responded to the petition, Reed filed a request concerning payment of compounding interest and recovery of costs and expenses in connection with a default judgment based on the arbitration award. Reading Reed’s filing liberally because he was representing himself, the court understood it as seeking the same relief as the petition—enforcement of the arbitration award—along with additional damages, interest, and expenses.
Respondent’s Motion
RMBS REO Holdings moved to dismiss the petition with prejudice and to vacate the arbitration award as invalid on its face. The opinion states that Reed was entitled to respond to that motion and that the court would rule on it later.
Ruling
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied Reed’s request without prejudice. The court held that any amendment to the petition or analysis of Reed’s claimed damages was premature while the motion challenging the arbitration award remained pending. The clerk was directed to close the filing associated with Reed’s request and mail him a copy of the order. This order did not decide the respondent’s motion to dismiss or the validity of the arbitration award.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.