Coudert Brothers LLP et al v. Rupert X. LI
| Development Specialists, Inc. |
| Rupert X. LI |
| Coudert Brothers LLP |
| 7:2016cv08237 |
| October 21, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Kenneth M. Karas |
| Withdrawal |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 0157 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
18
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 17 Order in favor of Development Specialists, Inc. against Rupert X. LI in the amount of $237,304.21. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated Jan uary 23, 2020, Judge Drain's Proposed Findings, dated October 21, 2016, are ADOPTED in their entirety. Judgment is entered for Plaintiff confirming the Li Award in the amount of $170,894.24 plus interest thereon from September 30, 2015 through the date of judgment, in the amount of $66,409.97, for a total judgment of $237,304.21; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 1/23/2020) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal)(km)
|
|
Filing
2
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court therefore concludes that service of the summons and complaint has not been effected on Defendant. Less clear is the effect of such failure. It is axiomatic that because Defendant was not properly served with the summons and complaint, the order compelling arbitration cannot be enforced as to Defendant. See Briscoe v. City of New Haven, 654 F.3d 200, 203 (2d Cir. 2011) ("The general principle in Anglo-American jurisprudence is 'that one is not bound by a ju dgment in personam in a litigation... to which he has not been made a party by service of process.'" (italics omitted) (quoting Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 40 (1940)). But the effect of Plaintiff's failure to serve on the validity of the arbitration is not a question the Court is prepared to answer, particularly because it does not have the benefit of briefing on the issue from either Party. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered: 1) Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Plain tiff shall serve or attempt to serve the summons and complaint on Defendant in a matter consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or shall petition the Court to allow alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3). 2) Within 30 days of certifying to the Court that service has been effected, Plaintiff shall submit briefing, not to exceed 10 pages, explaining how the Court should proceed at this stage. Defendant may respond within 30 days, in briefing not to exceed 10 pages. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 5/9/2017) (mml)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
