NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3869-18T1 BAY HARBOR PLAZA, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SHAILI MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and BHUPEN PATEL, Defendants-Appellants. __________________________ Submitted July 14, 2020 – Decided July 27, 2020 Before Judges Sabatino and Susswein. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-2449-17. Howard R. Rabin, attorney for appellants. Genova Burns LLC, attorneys for respondents (Michael C. McQueeny and Gerard D. Pizzillo, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendants, Bhupen Patel and his company Shaili Management Corp. ("Shaili"), appeal the trial court's March 29, 2019 order confirming a monetary award an arbitrator issued against them jointly and severally. The award resulted from a courthouse arbitration conducted pursuant to Rule 4:21A-6, at which defendants and their counsel failed to timely appear. As we will explain in more detail, defense counsel unsuccessfully submitted an after-hours, last-minute request to adjourn the arbitration the night before it was scheduled. In addition, defense counsel did not go immediately to the courthouse when he was notified the following morning that the adjournment request had been denied, but instead delayed his departure from his office in order to attend to another client. Moreover, defendants failed after their non- appearance to move for relief from the arbitrator's award within the twenty-day deadline prescribed by Rule 4:21A-4(f). Given these and other missteps by the defense, the trial court rejected the request to set aside the award, which the arbitrator had entered after duly considering plaintiff's unopposed evidence. Defendants now appeal, arguing that the trial court misapplied its authority. Among other things, they contend the court should have adjourned the arbitration because Shaili had filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition a few A-3869-18T1 2 days before the arbitration and therefore was protected by an automatic stay. In addition, defendants argue they established good cause for setting aside the award under the circumstances presented. They note that plaintiff's counsel had not opposed the adjournment request, had similarly presumed the request would be granted, and likewise arrived late to the courthouse that day after being notified the adjournment had been denied. For the reasons that follow, we are compelled to vacate the judgment as against Shaili because of the legal effect of the automatic bankruptcy stay imposed by federal law under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The stay, which is fully documented in the record and uncontroverted, clearly voids this monetary liability against that debtor, absent relief from the stay issued by the bankruptcy court. However, we affirm the trial court's order with respect to co-defendant Patel, who is not covered by the bankruptcy stay. The trial court reasonably enforced the Rules of Court governing arbitrations, and it did ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals