Haarslev Invest and Claus Ostergaard Nielsen v. Haarslev

Before the Court are Defendant Claus Oestergaard Nielsen's motion to vacate or stay enforcement of the judgment (Doc. #91) and motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal (Doc. #93). The Court, being duly advised, of the premises denies said motions.

On February 22, 2023, Nielsen filed a motion to vacate or stay enforcement of the judgment with respect to the Court's Orders granting Plaintiff's motion to confirm the Foreign Arbitral Award (the "Award") (Doc. #79), denying Nielsen's motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order confirming the Award (Doc. #85) and the Court's entry of a clerk's judgment (Doc. #80). (Doc. #93). The Court construes Nielsen's motion to vacate or stay enforcement of the judgment as a second motion to reconsider the Court's Order confirming the Award. Therefore, consistent with the analysis set forth in the Court's Orders confirming the Award and denying Nielsen's first motion for reconsideration, the Court denies Nielsen's motion to vacate or stay enforcement of the judgment.

Further, the Court denies Nielsen's motion for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal. The Court denied Nielsen's first motion for reconsideration (Doc. #85) on January 25, 2023, but Nielsen did not file his motion for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal until two days before the February 24, 2023, deadline. Additionally, though Nielsen cites Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), Nielsen has not shown good cause for the amendment. Rather, Nielsen states that "[n]o appeal will be necessary if this Court grants Nielsen's Motion to Vacate or Stay Entry of Judgment (Doc. No. 91) ... [t]he extension of time to file the notice of appeal will allow Nielsen's forthcoming motion to be heard by the Court." (Doc. #93). Notwithstanding Nielsen's opportunity to be heard on his motion to vacate, any such motion filed on February 22, 2023 would not have been ripe for ruling by Nielsen's deadline to file his notice of appeal on February 24, 2023. Having supplied the Court with no other reasoning, Nielsen's motion for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal is denied. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED Nielsen's motion to vacate or stay entry of judgment (Doc. #91) is DENIED. It is further

ORDERED Nielsen's motion for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal (Doc. #93) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 23, 2023