Neal v. 18 Susan CT LLC

S.D. New York

Neal v. 18 Susan CT LLC

DecidedApril 2, 2025

Docket7:25-cv-00703

StatusUnknown

This text of Neal v. 18 Susan CT LLC (Neal v. 18 Susan CT LLC) 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

Neal v. 18 Susan CT LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAVID SHAUN NEAL and CATHY CHAN, Plaintiffs, ORDER -against-

25-CV-00703-PMH 18 SUSAN CT LLC and MICHAEL FERNANDES, Defendants. PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs commenced this action on January 23, 2025 against 18 Susan CT LLC and Michael Fernandes (Doc. 1) and on March 18, 2025, Plaintiffs secured a Clerk’s Certificate of Default as to Defendants. (Doc. 16). On March 31, 2025, Defendant Fernandes filed a notice of pro se appearance on his own behalf (Doc. 21) and what purports to be his notice of appearance on behalf of Defendant 18 Susan CT LLC. (Doc. 22). An Answer by Defendant 18 Susan CT LLC “by its managing member, Michael Fernandes” was also docketed. (Doc. 23). To the extent these filings are a request by Mr. Fernandes to proceed pro se on behalf of defendant 18 Susan CT LLC, that request is DENIED. To the extent these filings are a request to vacate the Certificate of Default entered against Defendants, that request is likewise DENIED. With respect Defendant Fernandes, he has not filed any answer to the Complaint on his own behalf. With respect to Defendant 18 Susan CT LLC, it is axiomatic that a corporation, which is an artificial entity, may only appear in federal court through a licensed attorney; a corporation 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. Authority, 722 F.2d 20, 22–23 (2d Cir. 1983); see also Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of NY, 443 F.3d 180, 192 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[T]his rule has been applied to dismiss any action or motion filed by a corporation purporting to act pro se....[A]nd... where a corporation repeatedly fails to appear by counsel, a default judgment may be entered against it pursuant to Rule 55, Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Plaintiffs have indicated they intend to move for default judgment as to liability against Defendants. (Doc. 18, Doc. 20). Plaintiffs shall, May 2, 2025, strictly comply with this Court’s Individual Practices Rule 4(B) for obtaining a default judgment against Defendants.

SO ORDERED: Dated: White Plains, New York April 2, 2025 ( Boum / Philip M. Halpern United States District Judge

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 DAVID SHAUN NEAL and CATHY CHAN, Plaintiffs, ORDER -against-

25-CV-00703-PMH 18 SUSAN CT LLC and MICHAEL FERNANDES, Defendants. PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs commenced this action on January 23, 2025 against 18 Susan CT LLC and Michael Fernandes (Doc. 1) and on March 18, 2025, Plaintiffs secured a Clerk’s Certificate of Default as to Defendants. (Doc. 16). On March 31, 2025, Defendant Fernandes filed a notice of pro se appearance on his own behalf (Doc. 21) and what purports to be his notice of appearance on behalf of Defendant 18 Susan CT LLC. (Doc. 22). An Answer by Defendant 18 Susan CT LLC “by its managing member, Michael Fernandes” was also docketed. (Doc. 23). To the extent these filings are a request by Mr. Fernandes to proceed pro se on behalf of defendant 18 Susan CT LLC, that request is DENIED. To the extent these filings are a request to vacate the Certificate of Default entered against Defendants, that request is likewise DENIED. With respect Defendant Fernandes, he has not filed any answer to the Complaint on his own behalf. With respect to Defendant 18 Susan CT LLC, it is axiomatic that a corporation, which is an artificial entity, may only appear in federal court through a licensed attorney; a corporation 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. Authority, 722 F.2d 20, 22–23 (2d Cir. 1983); see also Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of NY, 443 F.3d 180, 192 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[T]his rule has been applied to dismiss any action or motion filed by a corporation purporting to act pro se....[A]nd... where a corporation repeatedly fails to appear by counsel, a default judgment may be entered against it pursuant to Rule 55, Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Plaintiffs have indicated they intend to move for default judgment as to liability against Defendants. (Doc. 18, Doc. 20). Plaintiffs shall, May 2, 2025, strictly comply with this Court’s Individual Practices Rule 4(B) for obtaining a default judgment against Defendants.

SO ORDERED: Dated: White Plains, New York April 2, 2025 ( Boum / Philip M. Halpern United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Neal v. 18 Susan CT LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neal-v-18-susan-ct-llc-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack