Coudert Brothers LLP et al v. Sullivan

Filing 12

ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that Judge Drain's Proposed Findings, dated October 21, 2016, are ADOPTED in their entirety. ORDERED that Plaintiff mail this Order by Federal Express International Mail Service, and through e-mail t o Defendant and file a Certificate with the Court indicating that it did so; ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment for Plaintiff, pursuant to Judge Drain's recommendation in Judge Drain's Proposed Findings. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court close this case and mail a copy of this Order to Defendant. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 5/4/2020) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

Case 7:16-cv-08248-KMK Document 12 Filed 05/04/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In re:
COUDERT BROTHERS LLP,
Debtor.
------------------------------------------------------X
DEVELOPMENT SPECIALISTS, INC., in its
capacity as Plan Administrator for Coudert
Brothers LLP,

No. 16-CV-8248 (KMK)
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM A. SULLIVAN,
Defendant.
KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:
In the wake of the dissolution and bankruptcy of an international law firm named Coudert
Brothers LLP (“Coudert”) headquartered in New York, Development Specialists, Inc.
(“Plaintiff”), in its capacity as the Plan Administrator for Coudert, commenced adversary actions
against several foreign former law partners at Coudert, including William A. Sullivan
(“Defendant”), to enforce certain contractual obligations. (See Op. & Order on Proposed
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (“May 2017 Li Op.”) 2 (Dkt. No. 2, Case No. 16-CV8237 (the “Li Action”)).) Plaintiff’s actions eventually culminated in a final award issued by an
arbitrator determining the amount of damages that Defendant owes Plaintiff. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff
then moved in bankruptcy court to confirm the award. (Id. at 5.) In response to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Confirm the arbitration award, the Honorable Robert D. Drain (“Judge Drain”) issued
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“Proposed Findings”), pursuant to the

Case 7:16-cv-08248-KMK Document 12 Filed 05/04/20 Page 2 of 3

bankruptcy court’s authority to hear non-core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). (See
Dkt. No. 1, Case No. 16-CV-8248 (the “Sullivan Action”).)
The Court identified service issues in this Action, and, despite delayed prosecution of this
Action, Plaintiff was permitted to serve Defendant at his publicly listed e-mail address and
workplace. (See Order 5 (Dkt. No. 6, Sullivan Action); see also Order to Show Cause for Failure
to Prosecute (Dkt. No. 3, Sullivan Action).) Plaintiff has submitted a Certificate of Service
stating that it has effectuated service of the summons and Complaint in accordance with the
Court’s January 23, 2020 Order. (See Cert. of Service (Dkt. No. 7, Sullivan Action).)
On March 12, 2020, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Defendant to
respond within 30 days explaining why this Court should not adopt Judge Drain’s Proposed
Findings, or at the very least, requesting the opportunity to brief the issue. (See Order to Show
Cause (Dkt. No. 9, Sullivan Action).) Pursuant to that Order, Plaintiff also filed Certificates of
Service indicating that the Order to Show Cause was served upon Defendant. (See Dkt. Nos. 10–
11, Sullivan Action.) The Clerk of Court also independently mailed a copy of the Order to Show
Cause to the address on record for Defendant. (See Dkt. (entry for Mar. 12, 2020), Sullivan
Action.) Defendant’s deadline to respond has passed, and Defendant has not appeared in this
Action at all.
For non-core proceedings, once a bankruptcy court issues proposed findings and
conclusions of law, typically, the “district court must then review those proposed findings and
conclusions de novo and enter any final orders or judgments.” Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency v.
Arkison, 573 U.S. 25, 34 (2014) (citation omitted) (italics omitted). However, as Defendant has
not appeared in the Action, no objections to adopting Judge Drain’s Proposed Findings have been
filed. The Bankruptcy Code mandates de novo review “of any portion of the bankruptcy judge’s

2

Case 7:16-cv-08248-KMK Document 12 Filed 05/04/20 Page 3 of 3

findings of fact or conclusions of law to which specific written objection has been made in
accordance with this rule.” Bankruptcy Rule 9033(d) (emphasis added). The Bankruptcy Code
also only mandates de novo review of “those matters to which any party has timely and
specifically objected.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Defendant has failed to file any objections or
even any intent to object to Judge Drain’s Proposed Findings within the prescribed time period,
and therefore, he has “waived [his] right to object to [Judge Drain’s] Proposed Findings.”
Messer v. Peykar Intern. Co., Inc., 510 B.R. 31, 38 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (collecting cases).
Regardless, the Court has reviewed Judge Drain’s Proposed Findings and has found no
error in its findings of fact or conclusions of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Drain’s
Proposed Findings.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Judge Drain’s Proposed Findings, dated October 21, 2016, are
ADOPTED in their entirety.
ORDERED that Plaintiff mail this Order by Federal Express International Mail Service,
and through e-mail to Defendant and file a Certificate with the Court indicating that it did so;
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment for Plaintiff, pursuant to Judge Drain’s
recommendation in Judge Drain’s Proposed Findings. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court close this case and mail a copy of this Order to
Defendant.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 4, 2020
White Plains, New York
________________________________
KENNETH M. KARAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3