Polska Fundacja Narodowa v. Athlete Benefits Group, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-05725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Polska Fundacja Narodowa v. Athlete Benefits Group, Judge Schofield set deadlines for briefing a petition to confirm an arbitration award.
Polska Fundacja Narodowa, Athlete Benefits Group, LLC, and Lamar D. Williams, particularly regarding the briefing schedule for the petition to confirm an arbitration award.
What happened
Polska Fundacja Narodowa asked the court to confirm an arbitration award. Athlete Benefits Group, LLC had not appeared or responded, while Lamar D. Williams had filed an answer.
The petitioner also asked for permission to serve Athlete Benefits Group by alternative means, saying that the company’s registered agent had refused service. The petitioner described Williams as the company’s “principal/agent.”
The court ordered the parties to follow a briefing schedule but did not decide the petition. Judge Schofield directed the petitioner to file its supporting memorandum by October 21, 2022, Williams to file any opposition by November 18, and the petitioner to file any reply by December 2. Because Williams was representing himself, the court said it would read his filing liberally.
The detailed version
- Polska Fundacja Narodowa v. Athlete Benefits Group, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05725
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 3, 2022
Background
Polska Fundacja Narodowa filed a petition on July 6, 2022, asking the court to confirm an arbitration award. On September 28, 2022, Lamar D. Williams filed an answer. Athlete Benefits Group, LLC (ABG) had not appeared or filed a response to the petition.
The petitioner separately asked for permission to serve ABG by alternative means. In support, it described difficulties serving ABG and said that ABG’s registered agent had refused service. The petitioner characterized Williams as ABG’s “principal/agent.”
Order
The court ordered the parties to file submissions concerning the petition according to this schedule:
- By October 21, 2022, the petitioner had to file a supporting memorandum of law of no more than 20 pages. - By November 18, 2022, Williams could file opposition of no more than 20 pages. - By December 2, 2022, the petitioner could file a reply of no more than five pages.
The court required the submissions to comply with its Individual Rules. It also stated that, because Williams was representing himself, any submission he made would be read liberally to raise the strongest arguments suggested by the filing.
What the order did not decide
The order set briefing deadlines; it did not decide whether to confirm the arbitration award. The opinion text also does not state that the court granted or denied the request for alternative service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.