In Re: George Washington Bridge Bus Station Development Venture LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-08069
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Tutor Perini v. George Washington Bridge Bus Station Development Venture: Judge Woods granted a stay pending Tutor Perini’s related Second Circuit appeal.
Tutor Perini Building Corp. and George Washington Bridge Bus Station Development Venture LLC; all proceedings in this case are paused pending resolution of Tutor Perini’s Second Circuit appeal.
What happened
In Tutor Perini Building Corp. v. George Washington Bridge Bus Station Development Venture LLC, Tutor Perini asked the court to pause this case while the Second Circuit considered another appeal that could affect the issues here. The appellee opposed the request.
The court concluded that the other appeal could resolve whether Tutor Perini was entitled to a bankruptcy-law payment claim called a “cure claim.” The court also noted that the appeal had already been fully briefed and that the appellee did not claim it would suffer prejudice from a delay. The court did not take a position on the appellee’s arguments that other legal doctrines barred this appeal.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted Tutor Perini’s request to stay all proceedings until the Second Circuit appeal is resolved. The parties must promptly file a joint status letter after that resolution, and the clerk was directed to record the stay on the docket.
The detailed version
- In Re: George Washington Bridge Bus Station Development Venture LLC · No. 1:21-cv-08069
- Gregory Woods
- July 9, 2022
Background
Tutor Perini Building Corp. appealed in this district-court case involving George Washington Bridge Bus Station Development Venture LLC. Tutor Perini also had a pending appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The district court had asked the parties to explain whether this case should be paused while that appeal was resolved.
Tutor Perini argued that a stay—a temporary pause in the case—was appropriate. The appellee opposed a stay. The court applied the factors used in the Southern District of New York, including the parties’ interests and potential prejudice, the burden on the parties, the interests of the courts and nonparties, and the public interest. A court may also stay a case when a higher court is close to resolving an important legal issue that affects the case.
Court’s Analysis
The court determined that the balance of the relevant factors favored a stay. The Second Circuit’s decision could resolve an issue directly affecting this appeal: whether Tutor Perini was entitled to a “cure claim” under Bankruptcy Code § 365(b). Tutor Perini argued that the Bankruptcy Court erred in approving a sale without allowing for payment of that claim if Tutor Perini succeeded in the Second Circuit appeal.
The court stated that the result of the Second Circuit appeal could be dispositive of Tutor Perini’s grounds for appeal in this case. The court also noted that the Second Circuit appeal had been fully briefed since March, making a lengthy delay less likely. The appellee argued that Bankruptcy Code § 363(m), which concerns statutory mootness, or equitable mootness barred this appeal. The court expressly took no position on those issues. It reasoned that, if the appeal was not barred, the Second Circuit’s decision could settle an important legal issue and promote efficient use of judicial resources. The appellee did not assert that a stay would cause prejudice.
Disposition
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted Tutor Perini’s request to stay this case pending resolution of Tutor Perini’s Second Circuit appeal. The order stayed all proceedings, directed the parties to submit a joint status letter promptly after the Second Circuit appeal is resolved, and directed the clerk to note the stay on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.