Citigroup Inc. v. Seade

Filing 30

ORDER: The parties shall appear for a teleconference on January 20, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. At the scheduled time, counsel for all parties should call (866) 434-5269, access code 9176261. The parties should be prepared to discuss at the telecon ference the petition to compel arbitration and whether the Court should continue and expand the Preliminary Injunction. Some of the issues thatthe parties should be prepared to discuss include: As set forth herein. Citigroup shall immediately serve a copy of this Order on Sayeg, with proof of service filed on the docket no later than January 13, 2022. SO ORDERED., ( Telephone Conference set for 1/20/2022 at 11:00 AM before Judge John P. Cronan.) (Signed by Judge John P. Cronan on 1/11/2022) (ama)

Download PDF
Case 1:21-cv-10413-JPC Document 30 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : CITIGROUP INC., : : Petitioner, : : -v: : LUIS SEBASTIAN SAYEG SEADE, : : Respondent. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X 21 Civ. 10413 (JPC) ORDER JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: On December 6, 2021, Petitioner Citigroup Inc. filed a petition to compel arbitration and asked for equitable relief to enjoin Respondent Luis Sebastián Sayeg Seade “from commencing or prosecuting any action or proceeding, in Mexico or elsewhere, arising out of or related to . . . Citigroup’s Discretionary Incentive and Retention Award Plan, as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2015 and Citigroup’s Capital Accumulation Program and Deferred Cash Award Plan each awarded to Sayeg on February 14, 2019 and February 15, 2018 (collectively, the ‘Plans’) other than in the arbitration now pending in New York entitled: Citigroup Inc. v. Luis Sebastián Sayeg Seade, AAA Case No. 01-21-0017-7441,” “directing Sayeg to immediately cease the prosecution of and dismiss any such proceeding,” and “compelling Sayeg to arbitrate any disputes between the parties” in that arbitration. Dkt. 1 at 8. On December 17, 2021, the Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order against Sayeg. See Dkt. 20. On December 22, 2021, the Court entered a Preliminary Injunction against Sayeg. See Dkt. 22. The Court noted in the Preliminary Injunction that if the Court did not receive any opposition to the petition to compel arbitration by January 5, 2022, “the petition to compel arbitration will be considered unopposed.” Id. at 2. The parties shall appear for a teleconference on January 20, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. At the Case 1:21-cv-10413-JPC Document 30 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 2 scheduled time, counsel for all parties should call (866) 434-5269, access code 9176261. The parties should be prepared to discuss at the teleconference the petition to compel arbitration and whether the Court should continue and expand the Preliminary Injunction. Some of the issues that the parties should be prepared to discuss include: 1. How the Court should analyze whether Sayeg has refused to arbitrate given his lack of appearance and Citigroup’s claim that the parties delegated the arbitrability issue to an arbitrator; 2. Whether Sayeg has appeared in the arbitration captioned Citigroup Inc. v. Luis Sebastián Sayeg Seade, AAA Case No. 01-21-0017-7441; 3. If the Court compels arbitration, and given Citigroup’s claim that the parties delegated the arbitrability issue to an arbitrator, whether the Court should compel Sayeg to immediately cease prosecuting claims in the Mexican Action and, if so, which claims that order should apply to; and 4. Whether the Court should stay the case if it compels arbitration. Citigroup shall immediately serve a copy of this Order on Sayeg, with proof of service filed on the docket no later than January 13, 2022. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 11, 2022 New York, New York __________________________________ JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge 2

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?