Russell Reynolds Associates, Inc. v. Usina
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-02369
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Russell Reynolds Associates v. Usina, Judge Rearden postponed the injunction hearing and extended existing temporary restraints.
Russell Reynolds Associates, Inc. and Nadezda Usina; the existing temporary restraints against Usina remain in effect until the court decides the preliminary-injunction application.
What happened
Russell Reynolds Associates, Inc. v. Usina concerns a preliminary injunction hearing that was scheduled for May 18, 2023. The court moved the hearing to June 13, 2023.
The court said it needed more time to consider late-filed motions, a contempt request concerning alleged violations of the temporary restraints, and the extensive record from expedited discovery. The opinion also states that the court had separately denied Defendant Nadezda Usina’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in a short-form order.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden extended the temporary restraints entered on April 21, 2023 until the court decides Russell Reynolds Associates, Inc.’s preliminary-injunction application. The order did not decide the preliminary-injunction application itself.
The detailed version
- Russell Reynolds Associates, Inc. v. Usina · No. 1:23-cv-02369
- Rearden
- May 17, 2023
What the Court Ordered
The court adjourned the preliminary-injunction hearing from May 18, 2023 to June 13, 2023. It also extended the temporary restraints entered on April 21, 2023, at 4:52 p.m. until the court issues its decision on Russell Reynolds Associates, Inc.’s application for a preliminary injunction.
Reasons for the Extension
The court found good cause for extending the restraints. First, several late-stage motions had been filed shortly before the originally scheduled hearing. These included Nadezda Usina’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which the court states it had summarily denied in a separate short-form order, and Russell Reynolds Associates, Inc.’s motion to hold Usina in contempt for allegedly violating the temporary restraints. The court said it needed additional briefing and development of the record before deciding the contempt motion.
Second, the parties had requested expedited discovery, which was continuing and had produced a substantial record. The court said the extension would give it time to evaluate that record. Finally, the court said additional time was needed to prepare its decision on the preliminary-injunction application.
Effect of the Order
The order kept the existing temporary restraints in place while the preliminary-injunction proceedings continued. It did not decide whether to grant or deny the preliminary injunction, and it did not decide the contempt motion. The opinion describes the jurisdictional dismissal motion as having been denied in a separate order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.