La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Company Limited v. Lan
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:21-cv-03071
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Company Limited v. Zhang Lan, Judge Fox denied the petitioners’ request to prioritize the case and ordered the parties to confer about service and scheduling.
The petitioners’ request for expedited consideration was denied. All parties were ordered to confer about consent to service and a briefing schedule and to file a joint status letter by July 21, 2021. The order did not resolve the petition to confirm the arbitration awards or the service dispute.
What happened
La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Company Limited and La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Group Holdings Limited asked the court to confirm foreign arbitration awards, enter judgment, and appoint a receiver to sell property. They later asked the court to quickly recommend granting that request because some respondents had not responded.
The respondents said they had not been properly served and that service by mail was not authorized. The petitioners argued that a method of service authorized in an earlier, related attachment proceeding controlled this case. The court noted that the docket did not show an entry of default and that the petitioners had not cited legal authority supporting their request.
Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox denied the petitioners’ request in Docket Entry 32, to the extent it sought priority in managing the court’s docket. He ordered the parties to meet and confer about consent to service and a proposed briefing schedule, then file a joint status letter by July 21, 2021. The order did not decide whether service was valid or whether the arbitration awards should be confirmed.
The detailed version
- La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Company Limited v. Lan · No. 1:21-cv-03071
- Lewis Kaplan
- July 16, 2021
Background
On April 9, 2021, the petitioners filed a petition seeking confirmation of foreign arbitral awards, entry of judgment, and appointment of a receiver to sell attached property. In a July 12 letter, the petitioners asked the court to proceed quickly with a recommendation and report granting the confirmation request on default. They said the case was closely related to an earlier attachment proceeding before Judge Carter.
Parties’ Positions
The respondents stated that none of them had been validly served. They argued that service by mail was not authorized by the Hague Service Convention, New York law, federal law, or an order in this action. They offered to confer about consent to service and a briefing schedule.
The petitioners responded that a method of service authorized in the earlier attachment proceeding controlled this related case. The opinion states that the petitioners did not identify language in the earlier attachment order saying that its service method governed this action. The petitioners also cited no legal authority supporting their request for expedited docket treatment. As of the order’s date, the Clerk’s docket showed no entry of default in this action.
Court’s Ruling
Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox rejected the petitioners’ request, insofar as it sought priority over other matters in the court’s docket management, calling it baseless. Docket Entry No. 32 was denied. The court ordered the parties, by July 21, 2021, to meet and confer about consent to service and a stipulated briefing schedule and to file a joint status letter of no more than one page.
The order did not rule on the validity of service, confirm or refuse to confirm the foreign arbitration awards, enter judgment, appoint a receiver, or determine whether any respondent was in default.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.