The Resource Group International Limited v. Chishti
- Louis Stanton
- 1:23-cv-01760
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In The Resource Group International Limited v. Chishti, plaintiffs asked Judge Stanton to temporarily halt arbitration while appealing an earlier injunction denial; the text shows no ruling.
The Resource Group International Limited, TRG Pakistan Limited, Mohammed Khaishgi, Hasnain Aslam, and Muhammad Ziaullah Khan Chishti.
What happened
In The Resource Group International Limited v. Chishti, The Resource Group International Limited, TRG Pakistan Limited, Mohammed Khaishgi, and Hasnain Aslam were the plaintiffs. They said they had appealed an earlier order denying their request to temporarily stop arbitration initiated by Muhammad Ziaullah Khan Chishti.
The plaintiffs asked the district court to temporarily stop the arbitration while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered their appeal. They asked the court to decide the request using the earlier written submissions and arguments from a March 2 hearing.
The provided text is a letter requesting that relief, not a court ruling. It does not show how Judge Louis Stanton decided the request.
The detailed version
- The Resource Group International Limited v. Chishti · No. 1:23-cv-01760
- Louis Stanton
- Mar. 7, 2023
Document and posture
The provided text is a letter from counsel for The Resource Group International Limited, TRG Pakistan Limited, Mohammed Khaishgi, and Hasnain Aslam. It asks the district court to issue a temporary injunction while the plaintiffs appeal an earlier order.
Background
The letter states that the plaintiffs had filed a notice of appeal from the court’s March 2, 2023 order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction that would have stayed, or temporarily halted, arbitration initiated by Muhammad Ziaullah Khan Chishti.
Request
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(C), the plaintiffs asked the district court to issue an injunction pending appeal before they sought emergency relief from the Second Circuit. They argued that the legal standard was the same as the standard used for a preliminary injunction: the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of the equities, and the public interest.
The plaintiffs asked the court to decide the request based on the parties’ earlier written submissions and the arguments made at the March 2 hearing. They stated that they could submit additional papers if the court required them.
Disposition
The provided text does not include a ruling by Judge Louis Stanton on the requested injunction pending appeal. Accordingly, it shows a request for relief but no disposition of that request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.