Belov

Background

Artem Belov and Belart Holding & Trade GmbH entered into a stock purchase agreement with Ilustrato Pictures International, Inc. on January 25, 2021. After the respondent allegedly failed to perform its obligations, the petitioners began arbitration proceedings with the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator issued a final award on September 18, 2024.

The petitioners filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award on December 9, 2024. They first attempted service by overnight mail and email. They later attempted personal service at the respondent’s publicly listed New York address, but building security said that no respondent representative or other authorized person was there. The petitioners then filed a second, substantively identical motion to confirm and asked to amend the notice of petition and serve the respondent by alternative means.

Service of Process

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) permits service on a corporation by delivering the initiating papers to an officer, managing or general agent, or another agent authorized to receive service. It also permits service under the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service occurs. New York law similarly allows service on specified corporate representatives and permits court-directed alternative service when ordinary service is impracticable.

The court found that the petitioners’ email and mail attempts were improper. It also found that their attempted personal service at the respondent’s principal place of business was unsuccessful. As of the order, the respondent had not been properly served.

The 90-day service period had expired. The court nevertheless granted a discretionary extension of the service deadline. It relied on the petitioners’ multiple attempts, the lack of clear prejudice to the respondent, the possibility that the respondent had actual notice through emails sent to its officers, and the preference for resolving disputes on their merits.

The court did not authorize alternative service. The petitioners proposed delivering papers to the respondent’s principal place of business and emailing them to the respondent’s principals. But the court found that the petitioners had not shown that ordinary service was impracticable because a search of Nevada’s official business portal identified a registered agent and the petitioners had not alleged that they tried serving that agent under Rule 4(h).

Ruling

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied without prejudice the duplicative motions to confirm the arbitration award and granted the petitioners leave to file a renewed confirmation motion after properly serving the respondent. The court denied the request for alternative service. The order required the petitioners to serve the petition and the order within two weeks in a manner consistent with Rule 4(h), then file proof of service. It also required proper service of any renewed confirmation motion and supporting papers, followed by proof of that service.

The court did not decide whether the arbitration award should be confirmed. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions listed at docket entries 3, 11, and 14.