Respondent tells Other Court repeated nonpayment and missed deadlines justify striking rehearing

Jean Paul Bernard, counsel for respondent Stephen Kaplan, told the Other Court the panel should affirm the lower court’s decision denying the motion to vacate and should affirm the final judgment entered for Kaplan. Bernard said the record shows a pattern of nonpayment and delay by Sanders and the Organic Pharmacy Research Institute that began with the underlying purchase-and-sale transaction and continued through arbitration, with missed fee obligations and repeated continuances.

Bernard told the court that reimbursement was raised at the June 24 conference and was not challenged by defendants at that time; he said defendants “expressly acknowledged that reimbursement must be paid on or before 06/27/2025 at 04:30PM.” He emphasized that a payment made later, in August, came after deadlines and did not cure the missed obligations that led the arbitrator to strike the rehearing. Bernard argued the arbitrator had authority under the arbitration clause in the purchase-and-sale agreement to impose payment conditions and that the court’s ability to review arbitration awards is limited.

Why this matters: Respondent’s position, if adopted by the court, would preserve finality of the arbitration award and deny the appellant’s request to reopen proceedings. The bench probed notice and timing; Bernard pointed to the conference record and an office reminder email as notice that deadlines were in effect. The court did not announce a ruling in the transcript.