Executive Park Partners LLC v. Benicci Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: April 28, 2022
• Docket: 7:22-cv-02560
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE PARK PARTNERS LLC, Plaintiff, ORDER

-against- 22-CV-02560 (PMH) BENICCI INC.,

Defendant. PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: On April 5, 2022, Executive Park Partners LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Return of Service indicating that Benicci Inc. (“Defendant”) had been “served by delivering . . . to: KEVIN JARDENE, a person in charge at the recipient’s PRIVATE MAILBOX . . . .” (Doc. 6 (emphasis in original)). On April 27, 2022, Vladimir Kozhedub (“Kozhedub”), attempted to file a document entitled “Defendant’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim” as well as a Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing. (Doc. 7; Doc. 8). Kozhedub, in the latter documents, affirmed under penalty of perjury that he “submitted a Non-Attorney E-File Registration for the PACER system . . . .” (Doc. 8 ¶ 3 (emphasis added)). Based upon the information available to the Court, Kozhedub—who is not an attorney— intends to represent Defendant in this action. That request is DENIED. A corporation, which is an artificial entity, may only appear in federal court through a licensed attorney; it may not appear pro se. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993); Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 722 F.2d 20, 22-23 (2d Cir. 1983). This “rule has been applied to dismiss any action or motion filed by a corporation purporting to act pro se.” Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of New York, 443 F.3d 180, 192 (2d Cir. 2006). “[W]here a corporation repeatedly fails to appear by counsel, a default judgment may be entered against it pursuant to Rule 55, Fed. R. Civ. P.” /d. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Defendant must obtain representation through a licensed attorney to appear in this case. Failure to do so may be grounds for a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. See City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 130 (2d Cir. 2011); Grace, 443 F.3d at 192; Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal, 925 F.2d 1305, 1310 (2d Cir. 1991). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that: (1) the time for Defendant to respond to the Complaint, in accordance with this Court’s Individual Practices and through counsel, is extended sua sponte to and including May 27, 2022; (2) Kozhedub’s request for permission to file electronically on behalf of Defendant is denied; and (3) Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on Defendant and Kozhedub and file proof of service on the docket on April 29, 2022. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to: (a) terminate the designations of “Counter Claimant” and “Counter Defendant” on the docket, as no counterclaims have been alleged properly by counsel; and (b) strike the purported Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim (Doc. 7) from the docket, but retain the docket text for the record.

SO ORDERED: Dated: White Plains, New York April 28, 2022 (Pan / PHILIPM.HALPERN ———(i‘“‘CSC;C;S United States District Judge