Pacific Services Establishment v. Djunic

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 1, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-07687
StatusUnknown

This text of Pacific Services Establishment v. Djunic (Pacific Services Establishment v. Djunic) 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
Pacific Services Establishment v. Djunic, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PACIFIC SERVICES ESTABLISHMENT, a Liechtenstein entity; STARLINE SERVICES ESTABLISHMENT, a Liechtenstein entity, Plaintiffs, -against- DANKO DJUNIC, an individual; SKIFF CAPITAL Case No. 1:24-cv-07687 (JLR) MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; SKIFF CAPITAL GP, LLC, a Delaware ORDER limited liability company; SKIFF CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LP, a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership; SKIFF CAPITAL (OFFSHORE) FUND, LTD., a Cayman Islands exempted company; SKIFF CAPITAL FUND, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, Defendants. JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: For the reasons stated on the record at today’s hearing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Max Nicholas LLC to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendants at Dkt. 41 is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint at Dkt. 38 is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the Motion to Stay at Dkt. 44 is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that fact discovery shall be extended to September 26, 2025. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall submit a revised case management plan that includes a revised expert-discovery deadline no later than August 15, 2025. It is further ORDERED that, in light of his representation at the hearing that he does not intend to retain counsel, Defendant Danko Djunic shall forthwith file a pro se notice of appearance, available at: https://www.nysd.uscourts. gov/sites/default/files/2018- 06/Notice%200f%20Prose%20A ppearance.pdf. Defendant Djunic may contact the Pro Se Legal Assistance Clinic available to self- represented parties in civil cases for legal assistance. The Clinic 1s run by a private organization called the City Bar Justice Center; 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 self-represented party through the Pro Se Intake Unit). The City Bar Justice Center can be contacted by phone (212-382-4794) or email (fedprosdny@nycbar.org). The District Court’s website also contains useful information regarding the litigation process for parties who are proceeding pro se, which is available at: https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/prose. Defendants are reminded that “a corporation may not appear in a lawsuit against it except through an attorney, and that, where a corporation repeatedly fails to appear by counsel, a default judgment may be entered against it.” Colburn Fam. Found. v. Chabad’s Child. of Chernobyl, 739 F. Supp. 2d 614, 620 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (quoting Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y., 443 F.3d 180, 192 (2d Cir. 2006)). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motions at Dkts. 38, 41, and 44, and terminate Max Nicholas LLC as counsel of record for Defendants in this case. Dated: August 1, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

fer Kocher acer Kocher United States District Judge

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

Related

Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Company Of New York
443 F.3d 180 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Colburn Family Foundation v. Chabad's Children of Chernobyl
739 F. Supp. 2d 614 (S.D. New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pacific Services Establishment v. Djunic, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacific-services-establishment-v-djunic-nysd-2025.