Skip to main content
S.D. New York· 3/6/2012

Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP

Citations

  • 856 F. Supp. 2d 638
  • 2012 WL 751970
  • 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31512

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that “considerations of judicial economy counsel, as a general matter, against investment of court resources in proceedings that may prove to have been unnecessary”
  • noting that “considerations of judicial economy counsel, as a general matter, against investment of court resources in proceedings that may prove to have been unnecessary”
  • conditioning stay of discovery pending resolution of defendant’s appeal on defendant applying to the Second Circuit for an expedited briefing schedule
  • staying discovery pending appeal and finding the “potential loss” of the right “to avoid the far greater expenses and other burdens attendant on class litigation (or even class- wide arbitration)” to be “cognizable” harm
  • “The first two questions — addressing likely success and irreparable harm to the movant — are the most salient concerns.”
  • “First, considerations of judicial economy counsel, as a general matter, against investment of court resources in proceedings that may prove to have been unnecessary.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dolinger

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.