Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 24, 2022

Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund Ltd v. Pareteum Corporation

Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Docket
1:19-cv-10460
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Sabby Volatility v. Pareteum, Judge Hellerstein terminated three conference-request filings because the case was already stayed.

Who this affects

The order affects the parties and counsel in Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund Ltd. v. Pareteum Corporation by terminating three conference-request filings while the case remains stayed.

What happened

Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund Ltd. v. Pareteum Corporation is a case in which lawyers submitted three requests for a court conference in May and July 2021. The court held a conference on October 6, 2021, and the case was then stayed.

The order says only that the case was stayed and that the Clerk should terminate the three conference-request filings, identified as ECF Nos. 31, 32, and 33. It does not decide the parties’ underlying dispute or state that the stay was entered by this order.

On February 24, 2022, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered the Clerk to terminate ECF Nos. 31, 32, and 33. The order did not otherwise rule on the case’s merits.

The detailed version

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

Case
Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund Ltd v. Pareteum Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-10460
Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Date
Feb. 24, 2022

Background

The opinion states that counsel submitted requests for a conference in May and July 2021, identified as ECF Nos. 31, 32, and 33. The court held a conference on October 6, 2021. The opinion then states that the case was currently stayed.

The text also includes material from a February 4, 2022 filing by counsel for Pareteum Corporation. That material says Pareteum had been engaged in mediation, that the parties believed a stay would preserve resources while they awaited further clarity about an ongoing government investigation and Pareteum’s financial condition, and that the plaintiff and the listed individual defendants did not oppose the requested relief. The court’s February 24 order does not describe the source or terms of the existing stay beyond stating that the case was stayed.

Court’s Action

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered the Clerk to terminate ECF Nos. 31, 32, and 33. This order regulated the court’s proceedings and did not decide the underlying claims or defenses. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied a motion to stay in this order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.