New Concept Energy, Inc. v. Gentile
- Denise Cote
- 1:18-cv-08896
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In New Concept Energy v. Gentile, counsel requested a stay; Judge Cote’s ruling is not included in the provided text.
The request concerned Guy Gentile, the plaintiffs in New Concept Energy, Inc. v. Gentile and the related Avalon Holdings Corporation action, and the court’s management of those proceedings. The provided text does not state the effect of any ruling because it contains no ruling.
What happened
New Concept Energy, Inc. v. Gentile concerns a request by Guy Gentile’s lawyer to pause this case and a related case while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considers a similar securities-law dispute. The request argued that the appellate decision could resolve whether the complaints adequately allege an injury required for federal-court standing.
The lawyer argued that both complaints allege violations of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act but do not allege concrete, particularized harm. Plaintiffs’ counsel opposed the requested stay.
The provided text is a letter to Judge Denise L. Cote, not an order, so it does not show whether Judge Cote granted or denied the stay request.
The detailed version
- New Concept Energy, Inc. v. Gentile · No. 1:18-cv-08896
- Denise Cote
- July 25, 2023
Document and request
The provided text is a June 26, 2023 letter from counsel for Guy Gentile to Judge Denise L. Cote. Counsel requested a stay, meaning a pause, of proceedings in two related actions: Avalon Holdings Corporation v. Gentile and New Concept Energy v. Gentile. The letter states that plaintiffs’ counsel opposed the request.
Reason for the requested stay
Counsel argued that the Second Circuit’s pending appeal in Packer v. Raging Capital Management, LLC involved a controlling legal question. According to the letter, both complaints assert claims under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Counsel argued that neither complaint alleges facts showing a concrete or particularized injury, which the Constitution requires for standing to sue in federal court.
The letter relied on an earlier decision from the Eastern District of New York that dismissed a materially similar Section 16(b) complaint after concluding that an alleged statutory violation, without concrete harm, was insufficient to establish standing. Counsel argued that an affirmance by the Second Circuit would require dismissal of the two related actions and that proceeding before the appeal was resolved could waste the court’s and the parties’ resources.
Disposition
The provided text contains no ruling by Judge Denise L. Cote. It is a party’s request for a stay, so the text does not establish whether the stay was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.