Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 4, 2022

Sandoz Inc. v. Cediprof, Inc.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:22-cv-09377
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
ArbitrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Sandoz v. Cediprof, Judge Broderick set briefing and service requirements for Sandoz’s petition to confirm an arbitration award.

Who this affects

Sandoz Inc. must serve the order and file proof of service; Cediprof, Inc. may file an opposition by December 2, 2022, and Sandoz may file a reply by December 16, 2022.

What happened

Sandoz Inc. asked the Southern District of New York to confirm an arbitration award against Cediprof, Inc. Sandoz filed its complaint on November 1, 2022, and supporting materials on November 2, 2022, but had not yet filed proof that Cediprof was served.

The court ordered that Cediprof’s opposition, if any, was due December 2, 2022. Sandoz’s reply, if any, was due December 16, 2022. The court noted that proceedings to confirm or overturn arbitration awards are handled similarly to summary-judgment motions.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick also ordered Sandoz to serve Cediprof with the order and file a sworn statement confirming that service occurred. The order set procedure and deadlines but did not decide whether the arbitration award should be confirmed.

The detailed version

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

Case
Sandoz Inc. v. Cediprof, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09377
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Nov. 4, 2022

Background

Sandoz Inc. filed a complaint seeking confirmation of an arbitration award against Cediprof, Inc. The opinion states that Sandoz filed the complaint on November 1, 2022, followed by a memorandum of law and supporting declaration and exhibits on November 2, 2022. Sandoz had not yet filed an affidavit of service.

Court’s Order

The court stated that proceedings to confirm or vacate arbitration awards are treated similarly to motions for summary judgment. The court ordered that Cediprof’s opposition, if any, was due December 2, 2022, and that Sandoz’s reply, if any, was due December 16, 2022.

The court further ordered Sandoz to serve a copy of the order on Cediprof and file an affidavit on the court’s electronic filing system certifying that service had occurred.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered a scheduling and service order. The opinion does not decide whether the arbitration award should be confirmed or vacated.

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.