Johnson v. Saba Capital Management, L.P.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-04915
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Johnson v. Saba Capital Management, Judge Torres denied an emergency temporary stay but allowed briefing on a later stay request.
The ruling directly affected the plaintiffs, Charles B. Johnson, as Trustee of the Johnson Family Trust, and Templeton Global Income Fund, and the defendants. It denied the plaintiffs’ request for an immediate temporary pause but allowed their later stay motion to proceed under a regular briefing schedule.
What happened
In Johnson v. Saba Capital Management, the plaintiffs asked the court to temporarily pause its January 31 order denying their request for a preliminary injunction. They sought the pause while preparing a request to stay that order during an appeal.
The plaintiffs said that without an immediate pause, a change in control of the Templeton Global Income Fund could occur before the courts could consider their request. The defendants opposed the request, and the plaintiffs had not filed a notice of appeal.
Judge Torres denied the temporary stay request. She allowed the plaintiffs to file their motion for a stay, but not on an emergency schedule, and set briefing deadlines through February 21, 2023.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Saba Capital Management, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-04915
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 1, 2023
Background
On January 31, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs then asked the Court to temporarily stay, or pause, the effect of that order while the parties briefed a motion for a stay pending an appeal. Plaintiffs had not filed a notice of appeal.
Plaintiffs argued that an immediate stay was needed because, without one, the parties would not have enough time to brief the stay request before a change in control of the Templeton Global Income Fund. Plaintiffs said that change could prevent the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from providing meaningful relief if Plaintiffs prevailed on appeal.
Defendants opposed the emergency request. They argued that Plaintiffs had provided no basis for a stay, that the request was effectively an improper request for reconsideration, and that Plaintiffs were attempting to change a status quo agreement to which they had knowingly agreed.
Court’s ruling
The Court denied Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary stay pending briefing on their motion for a stay pending appeal. The Court stated that the emergency application was of Plaintiffs’ own creation and was not supported by evidence. It also stated that Plaintiffs’ arguments about certification of the June 6, 2022 shareholder vote were the same arguments the Court had already rejected in its January 31 order.
The Court permitted Plaintiffs to file the stay motion, but not on an emergency basis. It ordered Plaintiffs to file their brief by February 6, 2023; Defendants to file their opposition by February 13, 2023; and Plaintiffs to file any reply by February 21, 2023. The parties could instead submit a joint letter proposing different dates if they agreed to another schedule.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.