By Riley Lewis

In a recent legal development that has garnered much attention, a New Jersey appeals court delivered a resolute rejection of the appeal presented by Janoris Jenkins, a former New York Giants player. Jenkins last played professional football for the San Fransisco 49rs in 2023.  The New Jersey Law Journal and Law 360 reported on the decision.

The appeal sought to contest an $800,000 arbitration award granted to the estate of Roosevelt Rene.

The underlying legal dispute traces its origins to the unfortunate death of Roosevelt Rene. Rene died after a tumultuous altercation involving Jenkins’s brother, William, at Jenkins’s leased residence in 2018. William Jenkins subsequently entered a guilty plea to reckless manslaughter, receiving a 10-year prison sentence.

The arbitration proceedings in the civil matter brought by Rene’s Estate, held on September 21, 2022, culminated in the arbitrator awarding $800,000 in gross damages, and $400,000 in a net award to Arabruny Lindor, Roosevelt Rene’s sister.

Frustrated with the outcome, Jenkins – through his lawyers – filed a request for a “de novo” to reject the award. He filed this request on October 24, missing the 30-day deadline by a slim margin.

Jenkins’s argument hinged on the contention that the filing date of the award into the eCourts system was fairly set at September 22 as opposed to the 21^st. The difference in this calculation was the difference between a deadline that fell on Friday October 21^st or Monday, October 24^th.  (Filings due over the weekend are due on the next business day.)

The trial judge and now the appeals panel dismissed this argument, underscoring that Jenkins had full awareness of the decision and the fact that the filing date was on September 21^st.  The filing date was unmistakably stamped on the award as logged in ecourts.

The court placed considerable emphasis on the paramount significance of adhering to the stipulated filing date, rejecting Jenkins’ interpretation. The panel maintained that adopting such a stance would inevitably lead to inconsistent applications of court rules, thereby jeopardizing the integrity of the legal process. Moreover, the panel rebuffed Jenkins’ assertion of an extraordinary circumstance arising from confusion about the filing date, asserting firmly that mere carelessness or a lack of diligence does not warrant a delay.

Notably, Jenkins’ filing not only missed the deadline but was submitted after at 5:50pm, after business hours, the Appellate Court noted. The Court also noted that Jenkins attorney altered the request to de novo form to suit their argument that the de novo was timely filed. In upholding the trial court’s decision, the judges reiterated the critical necessity of compliance with established deadlines, firmly dismissing Jenkins’ attempt to overturn the arbitration award.

Daniel N. Epstein, partner at Epstein Ostrove, LLC representing Lindor in this case, touted the firm’s ability to obtain the award in the first place and the appellate advocacy that contributed to the decision to affirm the trial courts decision to enter judgment confirming the award in favor the plaintiff.

See How Epstein Ostrove, LLC Can Help You