Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Feb. 9, 2022

Flatiron Acquisition Vehicle, LLC v. CSE Mortgage LLC

Docket
1:17-cv-08987
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Flatiron Acquisition Vehicle v. CSE Mortgage — the court entered monetary judgments for defendants and closed the case.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and the defendants identified in the judgment as “Cl,” “CF,” and CSE Mortgage LLC are affected by the monetary judgments; the case was closed.

What happened

In Flatiron Acquisition Vehicle, LLC v. CSE Mortgage LLC, the court entered judgment in favor of defendants identified as “Cl” and “CF,” jointly, for $334,041.49, and in favor of CSE Mortgage LLC for $326,137.64.

The judgment added $85,242.55 in prejudgment interest to the amount awarded to CSE Mortgage LLC, for a total of $411,380.19. Post-judgment interest will accrue at the rate set by federal law.

The court entered the judgment on February 9, 2022, and closed the case. The opinion text does not identify the judge who issued the underlying order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Flatiron Acquisition Vehicle, LLC v. CSE Mortgage LLC · No. 1:17-cv-08987
Date
Feb. 9, 2022

Disposition

The court entered judgment for the defendants and closed the case. The judgment states that, for the reasons given in a separate court order dated February 9, 2022: (1) defendants identified as “Cl” and “CF” jointly received $334,041.49; and (2) CSE Mortgage LLC received $326,137.64, plus $85,242.55 in prejudgment interest at 9% per year from March 17, 2019, through the judgment date. The total awarded to CSE Mortgage LLC was $411,380.19.

Post-judgment interest will accrue at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The judgment states that the case is closed.

Limitations of the Text

The provided text is the judgment, not the separate February 9, 2022 order explaining the underlying claims or reasoning. It also identifies two defendants as “Cl” and “CF,” without explaining those abbreviations.

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.