Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Apr. 19, 2024

San Antonio Fire and Police Pension Fund v. Dentsply Sirona Inc.

Judge
Arun Subramanian
Docket
1:22-cv-06339
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In San Antonio Fire and Police Pension Fund v. Dentsply Sirona, Judge Arun Subramanian invited letters about a recent Supreme Court decision.

Who this affects

The parties to the pending case, who were permitted to submit letters about the Supreme Court decision’s effect on the pending motion.

What happened

San Antonio Fire and Police Pension Fund v. Dentsply Sirona was pending in the Southern District of New York when the Supreme Court decided Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, P. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or pending motion.

The court gave the parties until April 26, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. to submit letters explaining how the Supreme Court’s decision might affect the pending motion. Each letter could be no longer than two pages.

Judge Arun Subramanian entered the order on April 19, 2024. The order did not decide the pending motion or resolve the underlying dispute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
San Antonio Fire and Police Pension Fund v. Dentsply Sirona Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06339
Judge
Arun Subramanian
Date
Apr. 19, 2024

What the order concerns

The court noted that the Supreme Court had recently decided Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, P., 2024 WL 1588706 (U.S. Apr. 12, 2024). The opinion does not explain the claims in this case or identify the pending motion’s specific issues.

Court’s action

The court allowed the parties to submit letters describing the Supreme Court decision’s effect on the pending motion. The letters had to be submitted by April 26, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., and could not exceed two pages.

Result

Judge Arun Subramanian ordered this limited briefing. The order did not grant or deny the pending motion and did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.