Trireme Energy Holdings, Inc. v. RWE Renewables Americas, LLC
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-07439
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Trireme Energy Holdings v. RWE Renewables Americas, Judge Rochon denied defendants’ request to file summary-judgment motions while Daubert motions remained pending.
The parties were not permitted to file summary-judgment motions at that time. The parties could raise the arguments again after the Daubert motions were decided.
What happened
In Trireme Energy Holdings, Inc. v. RWE Renewables Americas, LLC, the defendants asked for permission to file summary-judgment motions concerning two remaining claims about developing and constructing a wind-farm project. They argued that the evidence showed they were entitled to judgment without a trial.
The court denied the motion to file summary-judgment motions at that time because the parties’ Daubert motions were still pending. The court did not decide whether either side was right on the underlying contract claims.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon said the parties could raise the arguments again after the Daubert motions were decided.
The detailed version
- Trireme Energy Holdings, Inc. v. RWE Renewables Americas, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07439
- Rochon
- Dec. 9, 2022
Background
The defendants requested permission to file motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a procedure for deciding claims without a trial when the relevant facts are not genuinely disputed. The request concerned two claims that the opinion says remained in the related litigation: a claim alleging breach of a contractual commercially reasonable efforts obligation and a claim alleging breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The request also discussed a wind-farm development known as the Cassadaga Project and a possible milestone payment, but the court did not decide those underlying claims.
Ruling
The court denied the motion to file summary-judgment motions at present while the parties’ Daubert motions were pending. Daubert motions address whether proposed expert testimony is admissible. The court stated that the parties could re-raise the arguments after the Daubert motions had been decided.
What the ruling means
This order did not grant or deny summary judgment on either claim and did not resolve the parties’ dispute on the merits. It only postponed consideration of whether the parties could file summary-judgment motions until after the pending expert-evidence motions were decided.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.