Espinoza v. Euro Design and Stone LLC

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided March 23, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-04381·Unknown

Opinion

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------X : CALVIN ADONY MARIANO ESPINOZA et al., : : Plaintiffs, : 20-CV-4381 (JMF) : -v- : ORDER : EURO DESIGN AND STONE LLC et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On February 4, 2021, Defendants Salih Ozen and Robert Lala, proceeding without counsel, each filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. See ECF Nos. 56-57. In an Order entered the next day, the Court set a deadline for Plaintiffs to either file an amended complaint or oppose the motions to dismiss and set related deadlines for Ozen and Lala to either file replies in support of their motions to dismiss or respond to any new complaint. See ECF No. 58. On February 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint and, thereafter, obtained summonses from the Clerk. See ECF Nos. 61-67. To date, however, there is no proof on the docket that Plaintiffs have served the Second Amended Complaint and related summonses on Defendants. No later than March 26, 2021, Plaintiffs shall advise the Court of the status of service of the Second Amended Complaint. That is, if Plaintiffs have served Defendants with the Second Amended Complaint, they shall file proof of service by that date. If not, Plaintiffs shall file a letter by that date advising the Court of whether, when, and how they intend to effect service of the Second Amended Complaint on each Defendant. Relatedly, the Court’s Order of February 5, 2021, ECF No. 58, is hereby modified as follows: within three weeks of the date of this Order or the date on which the Second Amended Complaint is served on a Defendant, whichever is later, that Defendant shall (1) file an answer; (2) file a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint; or (3) file a letter on ECF stating that he or it relies on any previously filed motion(s) to dismiss. If either Lala or Ozen files an answer or a new motion to dismiss, the Court will deny the corresponding previously filed motion to dismiss, ECF Nos. 56-57, as moot. If any Defendant files a new motion to dismiss, any opposition shall be filed within fourteen days, and any reply shall be filed within seven days of any opposition. In light of the current global health crisis, parties proceeding pro se are encouraged to submit all filings by email to Temporary Pro Se Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov. Instructions for filing documents by email are attached to this Order. Pro se parties are also encouraged to consent to receive all court documents electronically. A Consent to Electronic Service Form is attached to this Order and available on the Court’s website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/ default/files/2018-06/proseconsentecfnotice-final.pdf. Pro se parties who are unable to use email may still submit documents by regular mail to the Pro Se Intake Unit, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, Room 105, New York, New York 10007, or in person at the drop box located at the U.S. Courthouses in Manhattan (500 Pearl Street) and White Plains (300 Quarropas Street). In either case, however, there may be significant delays before such filings are received and/or docketed. No documents or court filings should be sent directly to Chambers. More information may be found on the Court’s website at www-nysd.uscourts.gov and in the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases, attached to this Order. Additionally, the Court notes that a Pro Se Law Clinic operates in this District to assist people who are parties in civil cases and do not have lawyers. It is separate from the Pro Se Intake Unit. The Clinic may be able to provide Defendants with advice in connection with the case. The Pro Se Law Clinic is run by a private organization called the New York Legal Assistance Group; it is not part of, or run by, the Court (and, among other things, therefore cannot accept filings on behalf of the Court, which must still be made by any unrepresented party through the Pro Se Intake Unit). A pro se party may make an appointment by calling (212) 659- 6190 and leaving a message, including his or her telephone number. Defendant Euro Design and Stone LLC is reminded that while a person may appear pro se in federal court, a corporate entity may appear only through licensed counsel. See Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 2007). Where a corporate entity “repeatedly fails to appear by counsel, a default judgment may be entered against it.” Grace v. Bank Leumi Tr. Co. of N.Y., 443 F.3d 180, 192 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs are ORDERED to serve Defendants via overnight courier with a copy of this Order, including all attachments, within one business day of the date of this Order. Within two business days of service, Plaintiffs must file proof of such service on the docket. Finally, the Clerk of Court is directed to modify the docket to reflect that Defendants Salih Ozen and Robert Lala are proceeding pro se and to add their addresses as follows: Salih Ozen 132 Midwood Road Paramus, NJ 07652 Robert Lala 540 Warburton Avenue Yonkers, NY 10701 SO ORDERED. Dated: March 23, 2021 New York, New York SSE M-FURMAN nited States District Judge

SQ United States District Court □ oe .| Southern District of New York LS Temporary Pro Se Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov. rsTRICE a INSTRUCTIONS: EMAIL PRO SE FILINGS How do I email documents to the Clerk’s Office for filing? e SIGN. You must sign your document by either signing the document before you scan it or typing “/s/ [Your Name].” The Court will accept typed signatures in this format. e CONTACT INFORMATION. The document must include your name, address, telephone number and email address (if available). e SUBJECT LINE. For existing cases, the subject line of the email must read, “Pro Se Filing — XX-CV-XXXX.” For new cases, the subject line of the email must read, “Pro Se Filing — New Case.” e EMAIL the PDF document to Temporary Pro Se Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov. Can I start a new case by email? e YES. To start anew case, you may email your complaint to Temporary Pro Se Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov. e In addition to emailing your complaint, you must either (1) email an application requesting that the fee be waived, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/node/838, or (2) pay the filing fee of $400. If you are paying the filing fee, add to the subject line, “Pro Se Filing - New Case — FEE PAID.” Payment must be made within 21 days by certified check or money order, made out to Clerk, USDC, SDNY, and mailed to: Cashiers- Room 120, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. The check must include the case number, which you can learn by calling (212) 805-0175. Can I include any questions or information in my email? e NO. You must only include the attached document(s) for filing. No one will read messages in the body of the email and no one will respond to any questions.

500 PEARL STREET; 40 FOLEY SQUARE | NEW YorK, NY 10007 INN pnpnnac OCrpnreodtr ! Werte Dt atwatre NIV 1NL0N1

Will someone respond to my email? • NO. This email address cannot respond to inquiries. The Clerk’s Office will download the email attachment. This is a NO-REPLY email address. But you may call (212) 805-0175 to confirm that your documents were received. Please wait at least one week before calling. Can I email the assigned judge instead? • NO. Any submission emailed to any other court email address will be disregarded by the recipient. Can the Clerk’s Office assist with scanning? • NO. If you are unable to email your documents, you must submit them by mail to the Pro Se Intake Unit. Can someone email my documents for me? • YES. But please include your email address, if available, in the document.

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

Espinoza v. Euro Design and Stone LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Espinoza v. Euro Design and Stone LLC (Espinoza v. Euro Design and Stone LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Company Of New York
443 F.3d 180 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Lattanzio v. Comta
481 F.3d 137 (Second Circuit, 2007)