Genius Group Limited v. LZG International, Inc.

Background

Genius Group Limited asked the Court to vacate, or end, a temporary restraining order previously entered in the case. Genius Group argued that LZG International, Inc., Michael Thomas Moe, and Peter Ritz had not properly served Genius Group as required by the Court’s earlier order. Genius Group alternatively asked the Court to expedite the previously established briefing and hearing schedule.

The materials were initially sent to the Court by email because Genius Group asserted that they contained confidential information concerning the underlying arbitration between the parties. At the Court’s direction, Genius Group filed the materials on the docket under a restricted-access designation and separately asked that them be sealed. The Court also had before it an earlier sealing request at docket entry 36.

Service dispute

The respondents submitted a declaration and exhibits concerning their efforts to serve the papers. The declaration stated that the papers were emailed to Genius Group’s attorneys of record, Basile and Rose, but that they did not respond by consenting to email service. It also stated that a process server tried to deliver the papers to those attorneys at their place of business, but they refused to accept them because they believed the Court had ordered service directly on Genius Group.

The declaration further stated that a process server tried to deliver the papers to Genius Group’s registered agent, Jolie Kahn, at the address listed in Genius Group’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Building security reportedly said that Kahn did not have an office at that address. The papers were also sent by overnight delivery to Basile and Rose at their places of business and to Kahn at the address listed in the filings and at her residence. Delivery was confirmed on February 18, 2025.

The Court ruled that the email was not enough to complete service because the respondents had not shown that Genius Group or its lawyers had agreed in writing to service by email. But the Court held that service on Genius Group’s attorneys was appropriate because Genius Group was represented by counsel. The Court found that the in-person and mailed delivery to Basile and Rose satisfied the earlier order. It rejected the attorneys’ interpretation that the order required direct service on Genius Group rather than service through its attorneys of record.

Order

The Court denied Genius Group’s request to extinguish the temporary restraining order. The parties were directed to follow the materials, arguments, and evidence requirements in the earlier order and to stop filing supplemental letters without permission. The Court stated that it would not address the additional issues raised in the letters at that time.

The previously scheduled hearing on the respondents’ motion remained set for February 28, 2025, at noon in Courtroom 18C of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse. The existing briefing schedule also remained in effect. The Court provisionally granted Genius Group’s sealing requests at docket entries 36 and 66 and directed the Clerk to terminate those motions on the docket. The Court warned that failure to follow its orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Southern District of New York’s Local Rules, or its individual practice rules could result in sanctions, including monetary penalties, dismissal or preclusion of claims or defenses, or limits on arguments or evidence.