Blue Elephant Financing LLC v. Citadel Recovery Services, LLC
- Andrew Krause
- 7:22-cv-02937
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Blue Elephant Financing v. Citadel Recovery, Judge Roman waived the conference requirement and granted Citadel leave to file a motion to stay, setting briefing deadlines.
Citadel Recovery Services, LLC may file its proposed motion to stay. Blue Elephant Financing LLC must respond according to the schedule, and both parties must file the motion papers and provide the required courtesy copies.
What happened
Blue Elephant Financing LLC sued Citadel Recovery Services, LLC. Citadel asked to file a motion seeking to pause the case while an interpleader case in Louisiana concerning the same funds was resolved. Blue Elephant opposed that request and argued that the proposed stay would be improper.
The court did not decide whether the case should be paused or resolve the parties’ underlying dispute. Instead, it waived the requirement for a pre-motion conference and allowed Citadel to file its motion to stay.
Judge Nelson Stephen Roman set deadlines for the motion, Blue Elephant’s opposition, and Citadel’s reply, and directed the parties to file the papers by July 5, 2023. The court also terminated the motion listed at ECF No. 10. The opinion identifies Judge Roman, not Andrew Krause, as the signing judge.
The detailed version
- Blue Elephant Financing LLC v. Citadel Recovery Services, LLC · No. 7:22-cv-02937
- Andrew Krause
- Apr. 19, 2023
What the court considered
The court reviewed Citadel Recovery Services, LLC’s letter motion seeking permission to file a motion to stay the case and Blue Elephant Financing LLC’s letter response. Citadel sought a stay while an interpleader case pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana was resolved. An interpleader action is a proceeding in which a party holding disputed funds asks a court to determine which claimants are entitled to them.
Citadel’s letter said the Louisiana case involved a deposit of $1,366,181.91 and that the deposited funds were the same funds involved in this case. Citadel argued that several lawsuits asserted competing claims and that continuing the New York case could expose Citadel to multiple lawsuits or inconsistent obligations.
Blue Elephant opposed Citadel’s request. It asserted that its claims were based on sixteen estoppel letters and sought $2,794,072.048, plus interest and attorney’s fees. Blue Elephant argued that the estoppel letters prevented Citadel from relying on competing claims to the deposited funds, and it also challenged the Louisiana interpleader case as legally and procedurally defective. These arguments were presented in the parties’ letters; the court did not decide them in this order.
The court’s ruling
The court waived the pre-motion conference requirement and granted Citadel leave to file its motion to stay. The court set the following schedule:
- Citadel was to serve, but not file, its moving papers by May 19,
- - Blue Elephant was to serve, but not file, its opposition papers by June 20,
- - Citadel was to serve its reply papers by July 5,
- - The parties were to file all motion papers on July 5, 2023.
The court also required physical and electronic courtesy copies of the papers and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 10. The order did not grant or deny a stay, decide the interpleader issues, or resolve Blue Elephant’s claims against Citadel.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.