Fernandez v. Huddleson Linens, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 1, 2024
Docket1:24-cv-03793
StatusUnknown

This text of Fernandez v. Huddleson Linens, Inc. (Fernandez v. Huddleson Linens, 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
Fernandez v. Huddleson Linens, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, ORDER

-against- 24-cv-3793 (ER)

HUDDLESON LINENS, INC.,

Defendant.

Jacqueline Fernandez brings this putative class action against Huddleson Linens, Inc. (“Huddleson”) for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Doc. 1. �e action was filed on May 16, 2024. Doc. 1. On May 17, 2024, an electronic summons was issued, Doc. 4, and Defendant was served on June 20, 2024, Doc. 5. �at same day, Mr. Timothy Gledhill filed: (1) an Answer to the Complaint, Doc 8, (2) affirmation of service of the Answer on Plaintiffs, Doc. 6, and (3) a notice of appearance in the case, Doc. 7, apparently purporting to represent Huddleson.1 Subsequently, Mr. Gledhill was mistakenly listed as a “plaintiff” in the Court’s electronic case filing system. However, “it is well settled, [] that a corporation may appear in federal court only through an attorney and may not proceed pro se. See, e.g., Kaplan v. Bank Saderat PLC, 77 F.4th 110, 116 n.8 (2d Cir. 2023); Hounddog Productions, L.L.C. v. Empire Film Grp., Inc., 767 F. Supp. 2d 480, 486 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Accordingly, Mr. Gledhill may not enter an appearance on behalf of, or otherwise represent the defendant corporation. Mr. Gledhill is not a party, and again, may not

1 Mr. Gledhill sent the Answer to Rami Salim and Stein Saks, counsel for Plaintiffs, through FedEx overnight shipping. appear on behalf of Huddleson in any capacity. The Court cautions defendant Huddleson that its failure to have counsel enter an appearance may risk entry of default judgment against it. Therefore, the Court respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to strike Documents 6 and 8, and to strike Mr. Gledhill from the ECF docket.

SO ORDERED. Dated: July 1, 2024 □ Cl \ New York, New York \ Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J.

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

Related

Hounddog Productions, L.L.C. v. Empire Film Group, Inc.
767 F. Supp. 2d 480 (S.D. New York, 2011)
Kaplan v. Bank Saderat PLC
77 F.4th 110 (Second Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fernandez v. Huddleson Linens, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernandez-v-huddleson-linens-inc-nysd-2024.