OPINION AND ORDER In August 2020, Stonington Capital Advisors, LLC (“Stonington Capital”) and Stonington Drive Securities, LLC (“Stonington Securities,” and together, “Stonington”), petitioned the Court, pursuant to §9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), to vacate in part and confirm in part an award issued in an arbitration of their contract dispute with Southfield Capital, LLC (“Southfield”). Docs. 1, 9. Stonington had served as the placement agent for an investment fund managed by Southfield, and the dispute involved, inter alia, Stonington’s entitlement to certain re-up fees in a successor fund, also managed by Southfield. See Doc. 1. In September 2020, Southfield cross-moved to confirm the award. Doc. 21. In other words, Southfield was no longer contesting that Stonington was entitled to the re-up fees. In an opinion and order issued on March 25, 2021 (the “March 2021 Judgment”), the Court confirmed the award in its entirety, including, as relevant here, the portion of the award granting Stonington the right to the re-up fees. Doc. 27. On December 22, 2021, Southfield, having determined it had actually overpaid the re-up fees due to Stonington, commenced a second arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), seeking a declaration that it had overpaid the re-up fees. Doc. 41 at 3-4. Southfield maintains that in accordance with its agreement with Stonington, this claim — whether it overpaid the re-up fees — must be arbitrated. Stonington disagrees, and in February 2022 moved the Court to (1) enforce its judgment confirming the award obligating Southfield to pay it re-up fees and (2) preliminarily enjoin Southfield from arbitrating its claim that it overpaid the re-up fees. Docs. 36, 40. On July 19, 2022, while its motions to enforce the March 2021 Judgment and for a preliminary injunction remained pending, Stonington moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining Southfield from arbitrating its claim that it overpaid the re-up fees. See Doc. 87. At a hearing on July 27, 2022, the Court denied the TRO, finding Stonington had failed to meet the TRO standard and in particular had failed to show a likelihood of irreparable harm due to the delay in filing for the TRO, or that there were serious questions going to the merits. Because — as the parties acknowledged at that hearing — Stonington’s pending motions seek substantially the same relief as requested in its motion for a TRO, these motions also are denied. I. BACKGROUND Stonington Capital is a placement agent that works with middle market private equity firms to introduce them to prospective investors and facilitate investment. Doc. 1 4. Stonington Securities, which is wholly owned by Stonington Capital, is a registered broker-dealer with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Id. at 5. Southfield is a lower middle market private equity firm. Id. at 6. On June 20, 2014, Southfield executed a Placement Agent Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Stonington. Id. at
