Gutierrez Hernandez v. Marcel Cleaners, Inc.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:19-cv-10090
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Anabel Hernandez v. Marcelo Orbe, Judge Nathan ordered proof of service for an arbitration petition and warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
The petitioners and respondents in the arbitration-award confirmation proceeding, including Anabel Hernandez and Marcelo Orbe as identified in the caption.
What happened
In Anabel Hernandez v. Marcelo Orbe, the petitioners asked the court to confirm an arbitration award. The court had previously ordered them to provide proof that they served the respondent and the court’s July 17, 2020 order.
The petitioners still had not filed those service affidavits. The court directed them to file proof of service by August 24, 2020, and directed the parties to meet and submit a joint letter about a briefing schedule by August 31, 2020.
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that failure to follow the order strictly could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide whether the arbitration award should be confirmed.
The detailed version
- Gutierrez Hernandez v. Marcel Cleaners, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10090
- Sarah Netburn
- Aug. 21, 2020
Background
On July 7, 2020, the petitioners filed a petition asking the court to confirm an arbitration award. On July 17, 2020, the court set a briefing schedule but noted that the petitioners had not filed an affidavit of service showing that they had properly served the respondent. The court directed the petitioners to file that proof and to serve the July 17 order on the respondent.
Order
The petitioners still had not filed affidavits showing service of either the petition or the July 17 order. The court directed them to do so no later than August 24, 2020. It also directed the parties to meet and confer about a briefing schedule and submit a joint letter by August 31, 2020.
Effect
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that failure to strictly comply with the order could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. The order did not rule on the merits of the petition to confirm the arbitration award.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.