Camacho v. The Barrier Group Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 11, 2023
Docket7:22-cv-01156
StatusUnknown

This text of Camacho v. The Barrier Group Inc. (Camacho v. The Barrier Group Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Camacho v. The Barrier Group Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------X LUIS SERGIO CAMACHO,

Plaintiff, ORDER

-against- 22 Civ. 1156 (AEK)

THE BARRIER GROUP INC. and SUB ENTERPRISES INC. d/b/a DRIP DROP WATERPROOFING and JOEL REICH,

Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------X

THE HONORABLE ANDREW E. KRAUSE, U.S.M.J. The Court has received Plaintiff’s letter motion to adjourn the conference scheduled for July 13, 2023. As of today’s date, no new counsel has appeared on behalf of Defendants The Barrier Group Inc. and Sub Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Drip Drop Waterproofing (“Barrier Group”) and Joel Reich, nor have those Defendants sought an extension of time to retain new counsel. Accordingly, Barrier Group is in violation of the Court’s June 13, 2023 order (ECF No. 63). In addition, based on the Court’s review of the e-mail filed by Plaintiff’s counsel, it appears as though Defendant Reich had no intention of appearing at the July 13, 2023 conference as ordered, and Reich has made no effort to communicate with the Court to seek an extension. As the Court has previously advised Barrier Group, see ECF Nos. 52, 63, corporate entities may not appear pro se. See, e.g., Omega Consulting v. Farrington Mfg. Co., 604 F. Supp. 2d 684, 684 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“Federal law . . . is clear that a company may not appear pro se but rather must be represented by counsel.”). Accordingly, Barrier Group is required to retain new counsel, or else face the possibility of a default judgment being entered against it. Plaintiff's motion to adjourn the July 13, 2023 conference is GRANTED. The in person conference is hereby rescheduled to August 10, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. in the White Plains federal courthouse, Courtroom 250. This conference will not be adjourned again, absent extraordinary circumstances. As previously ordered, failure to appear at the August 10, 2023 conference may result in the imposition of sanctions, including payment of the attorneys’ fees and expenses for all counsel appearing at the conference. The deadline for Barrier Group to retain new counsel is hereby extended to August 7, 2023. If by August 7, 2023, no new notice of appearance has been filed by new counsel for Barrier Group and Barrier Group has not sought an extension of time to retain new counsel, the Court will consider allowing Plaintiff to file a motion for entry of a default judgment against Barrier Group. Chambers staff will send a copy of this order to Defendant Reich by email. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to the pro se Defendant, to mark the motion at ECF No. 64 as GRANTED, and to terminate the motion. Dated: July 11, 2023 White Plains, New York SO ORDERED. ChSaau Keenn—— ANDREWE.KRAUSE United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Omega Consulting v. FARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY
604 F. Supp. 2d 684 (S.D. New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Camacho v. The Barrier Group Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camacho-v-the-barrier-group-inc-nysd-2023.