City of New York v. Arm Or Ally, LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-05525
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In City of New York v. Arm Or Ally, Judge Furman granted the City’s preliminary-injunction motion and ordered proposed injunction terms.
The City of New York, Arm Or Ally, LLC, the other defendants identified in the caption, and their counsel were affected by the granted preliminary-injunction motion and the required proposed injunction and pretrial filings.
What happened
City of New York v. Arm Or Ally, LLC concerns the City’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion does not explain the underlying dispute or the reasons for the motion.
The court directed the parties to submit a joint proposed injunction or competing proposals by October 31, 2022. It also scheduled an initial pretrial conference for November 17, 2022, and ordered the parties to submit a joint letter and proposed case-management schedule before that conference.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the City’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion does not state the injunction’s terms, which the parties were directed to propose.
The detailed version
- City of New York v. Arm Or Ally, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05525
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 27, 2022
Ruling
The court stated that, as announced during an earlier teleconference, the City of New York’s motion for a preliminary injunction was GRANTED. The order does not provide the injunction’s terms or explain the court’s reasoning. The parties were directed to submit either a joint proposed preliminary injunction or competing proposed injunctions by October 31, 2022.
Pretrial Requirements
Unless the court ordered otherwise, counsel for all parties were directed to attend an initial pretrial conference by telephone on November 17, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. The parties were also directed to confer about settlement and other matters considered at a case-management conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.
The parties were ordered to file a joint letter of no more than five pages and a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order by the Thursday before the conference. The letter had to address whether the conference was necessary, the nature of the action and defenses, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, outstanding motions, completed and needed discovery, prior settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute-resolution methods, and other information useful to moving the case toward settlement or trial.
Other Directions
If the case was settled or otherwise terminated before the conference, the parties did not have to submit the letter or appear if proof of termination was filed on the docket. Requests to extend deadlines or adjourn the conference had to be made by letter-motion filed at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference. Counsel who had appeared were directed to notify counsel for parties who had not appeared, or those parties personally if their counsel was unknown, and to file proof of that notice. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 4.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.
Related cases
- Frommerv. MoneyLion Technologies
- Kelly Toysv. Store
- Kelly Toysv. Store
- Lead Creation Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations…Mar 2023
- Lead Creation Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations…Mar 2023
- Lead Creation Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations…Dec 2022