Pesic v. Mauritius International Arbitration Centre Ltd.
Peter Nikola Pesic et al. v. Mauritius International Arbitration Centre Ltd. et al.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-01100
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Peter Nikola Pesic v. Mauritius International Arbitration Centre, Judge Furman denied requests for counsel, sealing, and remote appearance, and questioned service on Sawatsky.
Peter Nikola Pesic’s requests for appointed counsel, sealed address filings, and remote appearance were denied, and the court required clarification of service on Robert Sawatsky while preserving the stated service deadline for Sawatsky and the other remaining defendants.
What happened
In Peter Nikola Pesic et al. v. Mauritius International Arbitration Centre Ltd. et al., the plaintiff asked for a lawyer, protection related to alleged threats, permission to keep address filings sealed, and permission to appear remotely. He also submitted process-server declarations concerning service on Robert Sawatsky.
The court denied the request for counsel without prejudice to renewal because the plaintiff did not claim he could not afford a lawyer and did not address other required factors, including the strength of his case and efforts to find counsel. The court also denied the requests to seal address filings and to appear remotely. It said the proposed process-server declarations did not show that the amended summons and complaint had been served on Sawatsky.
Judge Jesse M. Furman directed the plaintiff to explain in writing if he believed service had occurred and reminded him that he had until March 9, 2026, to serve Sawatsky and the other remaining defendants.
The detailed version
- Pesic v. Mauritius International Arbitration Centre Ltd. · No. 1:23-cv-01100
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 7, 2025
Requests for Counsel and Protection
On November 3, 2025, the plaintiff submitted an emergency application for counsel and judicial protection, including permission to file address-related materials under seal and to appear remotely if necessary for safety. The court applied the factors governing appointment of counsel in a civil case, including the merits of the plaintiff’s case, his ability to pay for private counsel, his efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and his ability to handle the case without assistance.
The court found that the plaintiff gave only one reason for seeking counsel: alleged threats that jeopardized his ability to present the case or protect his safety. The plaintiff did not allege that he was indigent or otherwise unable to afford counsel, and he did not address the other factors. The court therefore denied the request for counsel without prejudice to renewal.
Sealing and Remote Appearance
The court denied the request to seal filings concerning the plaintiff’s personal residence. It stated that the plaintiff had not identified the filings he wanted sealed. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s address of record appeared to be a business in Switzerland, while he said he currently resided in South Africa. It further stated that sealing would not address the plaintiff’s concerns about alleged threats from Robert Sawatsky because Sawatsky appeared already to know where the plaintiff lived, assuming the communications were genuine.
The court also denied the request for leave to appear remotely. It noted that many of the communications relied on by the plaintiff occurred months earlier and that no appearances were scheduled that required the plaintiff to appear in person.
Service on Robert Sawatsky
The plaintiff submitted two sworn declarations from a process server assigned to prepare and submit a request for service under the Hague Service Convention for Robert Sawatsky. The court said it was unclear whether the plaintiff intended the declarations to serve as proof of service.
The first declaration stated that the process server received emails from a person claiming to be Sawatsky saying, “I got served today.” But the declaration did not state that the process server served, or even attempted to serve, Sawatsky with the amended summons and complaint. The second declaration stated that the process server sent the plaintiff’s emergency application to an email address belonging to a person who claimed to be Sawatsky. It likewise did not indicate that the amended summons and complaint had been served. The court also stated that, if Hague service was required, the email did not appear to provide adequate proof that the summons and complaint were delivered to the addressee.
The court directed that, if the plaintiff believed service on Sawatsky had been completed, he should show cause in writing why that was so. Otherwise, the court reminded him that he had until March 9, 2026, to serve Sawatsky and the other remaining defendants. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 97.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.