NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. v. O.W. Bunker USA Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (see attached) regarding Plaintiff's 2 15 Emergency Motions. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on August 21, 2017. (Dorais, L.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD.
d/b/a NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINES,
Civil Action No.
3: 17 - CV - 1327 (CSH)
O.W. BUNKER USA INC., and
KELLY BEAUDIN STAPLETON,
LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE OF THE OWB
USA LIQUIDATING TRUST,
AUGUST 21, 2017
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:
The Court's Order dated August 16, 2017 [Doc. 10] directed counsel for Defendants to enter
their appearances forthwith, and directed Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Emergency Motion
[Doc. 2] on or before August 25, 2017. Defendants' counsel appeared separately on August 16 and
17 (Enright, Wright and O'Connor). [Docs. 11, 12 and 13]. Also on August 17, Defendant
Liquidating Trustee served claim submissions upon Plaintiff in the London arbitration that
Defendant seeks to commence against Plaintiff. Plaintiff denies that, in the circumstances of the
case, it is bound to participate in that London arbitration.
Plaintiff's complaint [Doc. 1] in this action seeks, inter alia, a declaratory judgment granting
a stay of or injunction against the London arbitration. Plaintiff's initial Emergency Motion [Doc. 2]
did not pray for preliminary injunctive relief in the form of a temporary restraining order ("TRO").
However, galvanized by the Liquidating Trustee's August 17 service of claim submissions in the
intended London arbitration, counsel for Plaintiff filed on August 18 a further Emergency Motion
[Doc. 15] which, this time, prays for a TRO or preliminary injunction staying any further
proceedings in the London arbitration until the Court has adjudicated Plaintiff's initial Emergency
The Court may issue a TRO "without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its
attorney" only in circumstances which are not present in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). In point
of fact, by e-mail at 3:40 p.m. on August 18, counsel for Plaintiff gave counsel for Defendants notice
that Plaintiff would file later that day "a TRO enjoining the London arbitration that your clients are
pursuing against my client, until the District Court rules on the emergency motion to stay the
arbitration that my client previously filed in the action." [Doc. 15-3]. Filing of Plaintiff's further
Emergency Motion took place later that afternoon.1
In these circumstances, and given the exigencies of the case, the Court makes this Order:
On or before 4:00 p.m. on August 22, 2017, Defendants must file a submission
which either (a) expresses Defendants' agreement to a stay of further proceedings in
the London arbitration until this Court decides Plaintiff's Emergency Motion [Doc.
2], after appeals, if any; or (b) states the reasons and authorities why the Court should
not enter a TRO in the form prayed for by the Plaintiff. If Defendants opt for
procedure (b), Plaintiff may file a reply to Defendants' objection to a TRO by noon
on August 23. The Court will adjudicate the motion for a TRO after considering
Having appeared in this action, counsel for Defendants also received immediate electronic
notice of the August 18 Emergency Motion [Doc. 15], when Plaintiff filed it at 4:29 p.m., via the
Court's CM/ECF system.
If Defendants opt for procedure 1(b), they are directed to file any further objections
to Plaintiff's two Emergency Motions [Doc. 2, 15] on or before August 25, 2017.
Plaintiff may file reply papers by noon on August 29, 2017. The Court will then
conduct a hearing at 2:00 p.m. on August 29, 2017, in the 17th floor Courtroom
at 157 Church Street, New Haven. The principal purpose of that hearing will be
to consider whether the Court should enter a preliminary injunction in the form
prayed for by the Plaintiff.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: New Haven, Connecticut
August 21, 2017
/s/Charles S. Haight, Jr.
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR.
Senior United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?