Doe v. Baram

S.D. New York

Doe v. Baram

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided March 11, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-09522·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE, Plaintiff, . ORDER — against — 20 Civ. 9522 (ER) JONATHAN BARAM and WARREN & BARAM MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendants.

RAMOS, D.J.: Plaintiff filed this suit on November 12, 2020. Doc. 1. On February 5, 2021, the Court granted Defendants leave to file a motion to dismiss by February 26, 2021. In a letter dated February 26, 2021 but docketed on March 9, 2021, Jonathan Baram, appearing pro se, asserts that the federal claims in this suit should be dismissed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Doc. 22. The Court construes Baram’s letter as his motion to dismiss and respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to classify it as such on the docket. /d. Mr. Baram is advised that he cannot move on behalf of Warren & Baram Management LLC, as a corporation may not appear pro se and must retain counsel to avoid default. Carlone v. Lion & the Bull Films, Inc., 861 F. Supp. 2d 312, 318 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Accordingly, if counsel does not appear on behalf of Warren & Baram Management LLC within 30 days, the company may be held in default.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2021 ye New York, New York A \ Hes EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.D.J.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE, Plaintiff, . ORDER — against — 20 Civ. 9522 (ER) JONATHAN BARAM and WARREN & BARAM MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendants.

RAMOS, D.J.: Plaintiff filed this suit on November 12, 2020. Doc. 1. On February 5, 2021, the Court granted Defendants leave to file a motion to dismiss by February 26, 2021. In a letter dated February 26, 2021 but docketed on March 9, 2021, Jonathan Baram, appearing pro se, asserts that the federal claims in this suit should be dismissed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Doc. 22. The Court construes Baram’s letter as his motion to dismiss and respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to classify it as such on the docket. /d. Mr. Baram is advised that he cannot move on behalf of Warren & Baram Management LLC, as a corporation may not appear pro se and must retain counsel to avoid default. Carlone v. Lion & the Bull Films, Inc., 861 F. Supp. 2d 312, 318 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Accordingly, if counsel does not appear on behalf of Warren & Baram Management LLC within 30 days, the company may be held in default.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2021 ye New York, New York A \ Hes EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.D.J.

Doe v. Baram, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Doe v. Baram (Doe v. Baram) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related