Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-06699
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, Inc., Judge Cave reopened briefing on Garnes’s arbitration-award motion and set deadlines.
Mark Garnes and Pritchard Industries, Inc.; the order set deadlines for responding to Garnes’s motion concerning an arbitration award.
What happened
In Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, Inc., Mark Garnes, representing himself, asked the court to vacate, modify, or correct a November 16, 2023 arbitration award related to his claims. The court had previously paused the schedule for Pritchard Industries, Inc. to respond.
After developments in a prior related proceeding, the court ended the pause on briefing. The opinion says that proceeding was dismissed because Garnes failed to follow court orders and failed to prosecute his case.
The court ordered Pritchard Industries, Inc. to file its opposition by May 20, 2024, and allowed Garnes to file a reply by June 3, 2024, if he chose to do so. Judge Sarah L. Cave did not decide the arbitration-award motion in this order; all other parts of the earlier order remained in effect.
The detailed version
- Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06699
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 3, 2024
Background
On January 29, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Mark Garnes filed a motion asking the court to “vacate, modify and correct” a November 16, 2023 arbitration award concerning his claims in this case. On February 5, 2024, the court held Pritchard Industries, Inc.’s deadline to respond in abeyance, meaning that the response deadline was temporarily paused.
The court referred to developments in a prior related proceeding that Garnes filed against Pritchard. The opinion states that the earlier case was dismissed because Garnes failed to follow the court’s orders and failed to prosecute the case.
Order
The court ended the pause on briefing for Garnes’s motion. It ordered Pritchard Industries, Inc. to file its opposition by May 20, 2024. Garnes could file a reply by June 3, 2024, if he wished to do so. The court stated that all other aspects of the February 5 order remained in effect.
This order set a briefing schedule; it did not grant or deny Garnes’s motion to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.