OPINION AND ORDER This dispute arises from the failed relationship between the limited partners to an investment partnership on one side, and the individuals who own and control the partnership’s general partner on the other. Since Plaintiffs Leslie and Lillian Schneider, Claridge Associates, LLC, and Jamiscott, LLC filed suit against Defendants Anthony Schepis, Frank and Ruth Canelas, and Northeast Capital Management, LLC in June 2015, the parties have engaged in motion practice at the pleading stage and participated in arbitration proceedings. Now, Plaintiffs move the Court for partial summary judgment on two claims against Anthony Schepis and Frank Canelas for breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs argue that because the breaches of fiduciary duty were adjudicated on the merits during arbitration proceedings in 2012, Defendants Schepis and Canelas are collaterally estopped from contesting them here. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.BACKGROUND1The Court has previously expounded on the relevant factual and procedural histories in the course of resolving Defendants’ 2016 motion to dismiss. See generally Claridge Assocs., LLC v. Schepis, No. 15 Civ. 4514 (KPF), 2016 WL 2742425, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2016) (“Claridge I”). As a result, the Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and will only discuss what is necessary to resolve the instant motion.Broadly speaking, this dispute arises out of an investment relationship. In late 2006 and early 2007, Plaintiffs invested approximately $7 million in the Pursuit Capital Management Fund I, L.P. (the “Fund”). (Pl. 56.1 1). Pursuit Capital Management, LLC (“PCM”) served as the Fund’s general partner, and was itself owned, managed, and controlled by Defendants Schepis and Canelas. (Id. at
