Coudert Brothers LLP v. Rupert X. LI
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:16-cv-08237
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Coudert Brothers LLP v. Rupert X. Li, Judge Karas adopted bankruptcy findings and ordered judgment for Plaintiff after Li did not respond.
The ruling affects Development Specialists, Inc., acting as Coudert Brothers LLP’s Plan Administrator, and Rupert X. Li. It directs entry of judgment for Plaintiff under the bankruptcy court’s recommendation concerning the arbitration award.
What happened
In Coudert Brothers LLP v. Rupert X. Li, Development Specialists, Inc., acting as Coudert Brothers LLP’s Plan Administrator, sought to enforce contractual obligations against former partner Rupert X. Li. An arbitrator issued a final award determining the damages Li owed.
The bankruptcy court proposed findings recommending confirmation of the arbitration award. The District Court had previously identified problems with service, but Plaintiff later served the summons and complaint. Li did not appear or respond to the court’s order asking why it should not adopt the bankruptcy court’s findings.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas found no error in the proposed factual findings or legal conclusions and adopted them in full. The court ordered the Clerk to enter judgment for Plaintiff under the bankruptcy court’s recommendation, directed that the order be sent to Li, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Coudert Brothers LLP v. Rupert X. LI · No. 7:16-cv-08237
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 23, 2020
Background
Coudert Brothers LLP dissolved and entered bankruptcy. Development Specialists, Inc. brought adversary actions in its capacity as Coudert’s Plan Administrator against several former foreign partners, including Rupert X. Li, seeking to enforce contractual obligations. An arbitrator later issued a final award determining the damages Li owed Plaintiff. Plaintiff moved in bankruptcy court to confirm that award.
The bankruptcy court issued proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the motion. The District Court previously determined that, although Li may have received notice of a hearing, the summons and complaint had not been served in a manner recognized by the Federal Rules. The court ordered Plaintiff to complete service. Plaintiff later reported that it had served the summons and complaint and submitted international-mail receipts.
Review of the Proposed Findings
The District Court issued an order requiring Li to explain why it should not adopt the bankruptcy court’s proposed findings. The deadline passed, and Li had not appeared in the action or filed objections.
Because this was a non-core bankruptcy proceeding, the District Court ordinarily would review de novo—meaning independently and without deferring to the bankruptcy court—any portions of the proposed findings to which a party made a timely, specific written objection. The court concluded that Li waived the right to object by failing to file objections or even a timely notice of intent to object. The court nevertheless reviewed the proposed findings and found no error in the bankruptcy court’s factual findings or legal conclusions.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas adopted the bankruptcy court’s proposed findings, dated October 21, 2016, in their entirety. The court ordered the Clerk to enter judgment for Plaintiff pursuant to the bankruptcy court’s recommendation. It also ordered Plaintiff to send the District Court’s order to Li by international mail and email, directed the Clerk to mail Li a copy, and ordered the case closed.
Disposition
The proposed findings were adopted in their entirety, judgment was ordered for Plaintiff, and the case was closed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.