Christmas v. North American Tower Corporation
This text of Christmas v. North American Tower Corporation (Christmas v. North American Tower Corporation) 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.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 11/3/2022 ----------------------------------------------------------------- X JOHN CHRISTMAS, : : Plaintiff, : : 1:22-cv-6630-GHW -against - : : ORDER NORTH AMERICAN TOWER CORP. and : MICHAEL HOLODAY, : : Defendants. : : : ----------------------------------------------------------------- X GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: The Court declines to act on the proposed consent order seeking an extension of Defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, Dkt. No. 23, because the parties failed to comply with the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, in particular Rules 1(E) and 1(F). Rule 1(E) requires that all requests for extensions of time be made by letter. Rule 1(F) requires that proposed orders be accompanied by a joint letter and that “[p]arties should not expect that the Court will act on a proposed stipulation or order unless it is accompanied by such a letter.” To the extent that the parties seek to extend the deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, the parties are directed to comply with Rule 1(E) and, if applicable, also with Rule 1(F). The proposed consent order filed on November 3, 2022, Dkt. No. 23, is signed by Michael Holoday on behalf of himself and as “the owner and principal of NATC Tower Corporation and North American Tower Corporation.” Id. The Court reiterates that Defendants NATC Tower Corporation and North American Tower Corporation must be represented by counsel in this action. See United States v. Twenty Miljam-350 IED Jammers, 669 F.3d 78, 91 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[A] corporation is not allowed to appear in federal court except by a licensed attorney.”). Plaintiff 1s directed to serve a copy of this order on all defendants in this action and to retain proof of service. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 3, 2022 New York, New York / Loved GRE . WOODS United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Christmas v. North American Tower Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christmas-v-north-american-tower-corporation-nysd-2022.