Ponce Rodriguez v. Capri Laundromat Room Limited Liability Company

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 22, 2024
Docket1:22-cv-10528
StatusUnknown

This text of Ponce Rodriguez v. Capri Laundromat Room Limited Liability Company (Ponce Rodriguez v. Capri Laundromat Room Limited Liability Company) 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
Ponce Rodriguez v. Capri Laundromat Room Limited Liability Company, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ARTURO PONCE RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, 22 Civ. 10528 (JHR) -v.- ORDER CAPRI LAUNDROMAT ROOM LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY et al., Defendants. JENNIFER H. REARDEN, District Judge: On December 13, 2022 Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Capri Laundromat Room Limited Liability Company, d/b/a Capri Laundry Room (the “Corporate Defendant”) and Angelo Campos De Araujo (the “Individual Defendant”). ECF No. 1 (Compl.). On December 15, 2022, the Corporate Defendant was served with the summons and Complaint. ECF No. 9. The Corporate Defendant’s response therefore was due on January 5, 2023. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). On December 20, 2022, the Individual Defendant was served with the summons and Complaint. ECF No. 10. The Individual Defendant’s response therefore was due on January 10, 2024. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). On January 10, 2023, the Individual Defendant, acting pro se, filed a motion requesting “more time to answer the civil action against myself and my company.” ECF No. 11. On March 7, 2023, following reassignment to this Court, the Individual Defendant filed a Notice of Appearance Pro Se, see ECF No. 12, and filed an Answer on his own behalf and on behalf of the Corporate Defendant, see ECF No. 13. On March 23, 2023, the Court issued an Order (the “March 2023 Order”) explaining 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,” ECF No. 14 at 1 (citation omitted), and that, “[t]herefore, the Motion [for an extension of time to respond] and the Answer, insofar as they were filed on behalf of [the Corporate Defendant], . . . are a nullity,” id. at 2; see Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (“28 U.S.C. § 1654, which governs appearances in federal court, . . . . does not permit ‘unlicensed laymen to represent anyone else other than themselves.’” (citation omitted)). The Court directed the Corporate Defendant to, “within 30 days of service of this Order, . . . obtain representation through a licensed attorney to appear in

this case” and cautioned that “failure to do so may constitute grounds for entry of a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55.” Id. at 2. The Court also directed the Individual Defendant to, “within 30 days of service of this Order, . . . file a motion for leave to amend his Answer, along with a proposed amended answer that addresses Plaintiff’s claims and allegations against him and is filed solely on his behalf.” Id. The March 2023 Order was mailed to 343 E. 66th Street, New York, NY 10065—the address of record for the Individual Defendant. On April 25, 2023, the mailing was returned to sender. On May 1, 2023, the Court issued an Order (the “May 2023 Order”) directing the Individual Defendant “to update his address of record within 30 days of the date of this Order.” ECF No. 15. The May 2023 Order was mailed to the address of record for the Individual

Defendant. On May 12, 2023, the mailing was again returned to sender. On May 23, 2023, the Individual Defendant filed a letter providing a “residential” and a “commercial” address. The latter—343 E. 66th Street in Manhattan—appears to be the same as the Individual Defendant’s address of record on the docket. ECF No. 16.1

1 The “commercial” address in ECF No. 16 also includes “Bsmt Level.” On January 30, 2024, Plaintiff requested Certificates of Default as to both Defendants, see ECF Nos. 19, 20, and filed a supporting affirmation, see ECF No. 21. On January 31, 2024, the Clerk of Court issued a Certificate of Default as to the Corporate Defendant. ECF No. 22. Although the Court’s March and May 2023 Orders were sent to 343 E. 66th Street in Manhattan, which is included in the Individual Defendant’s May 23, 2023 letter concerning his addresses, see ECF No. 16, the returned mailings suggest that the Individual Defendant did not

receive those Orders. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, by Friday, June 21, 2024, the Corporate Defendant shall respond to the Complaint through counsel. Failure to do so may constitute grounds for entry of a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. See Grace v. Bank Leumi Tr. Co. of NY, 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 [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 55.” (citation omitted)). As for the Individual Defendant, he is encouraged to file an Amended Answer, with or without the assistance of counsel, to ensure that the record is clear as to his own responses to the Complaint. To that end, the Court grants the Individual Defendant leave to file an Amended Answer by Friday, June 21, 2024. If the Individual Defendant does not file an Amended

Answer by that deadline, then the case will proceed with ECF No. 13 as the operative answer as to the Individual Defendant. The Individual Defendant is also encouraged to consent to receive electronic service through ECF. The Court has enclosed with this Order the Pro Se Consent to Electronic Service form. Finally, the Individual Defendant is reminded of his “obligation to promptly inform the Court and the opposing party of an address change.” ECF No. 15 at 1 (quoting Am. Arb. Ass’n, Inc. v. Defonseca, No. 93 Civ. 2424 (CSH), 1997 WL 102495, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 1997)). Also enclosed with this Order is the Notice of Change of Address For Pro Se Litigants form, which must be submitted (i) through mail or in person to the Pro Se Intake Unit at 40 Foley Square, Room 105, New York, New York 10007 or (ii) through email to ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov. By Friday, May 24, 2024, Plaintiff shall serve Defendants, at both of the addresses provided in the Individual Defendant’s letter at ECF No. 16, with (4) the March 2023 Order; (11) the May 2023 Order; and (iii) this Order. Within two business days of service, Plaintiff shall file proof of such service on the docket. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 22, 2024 New York, New York &

United States District Judge

esses DISTRI KER Sf. EE a NO 5 ey 4\ United States District Court 6 iT £/ Southern District of New York eS S, WB x ES ISTRICT Pro Se (Nonprisoner) Consent to Receive Documents Electronically Parties who are not represented by an attorney and are not currently incarcerated may choose to receive documents in their cases electronically (by e-mail) instead of by regular mail. Receiving documents by regular mail is still an option, but if you would rather receive them only electronically, you must do the following: 1. Sign up fora PACER login and password by contacting PACER! at www.pacer.uscourts.gov or 1-800-676-6856; 2. Complete and sign this form. If you consent to receive documents electronically, you will receive a Notice of Electronic Filing by e- mail each time a document is filed in your case. After receiving the notice, you are permitted one “free look” at the document by clicking on the hyperlinked document number in the e-mail.? Once you click the hyperlink and access the document, you may not be able to access the document for free again.

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)
Lattanzio v. Comta
481 F.3d 137 (Second Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ponce Rodriguez v. Capri Laundromat Room Limited Liability Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ponce-rodriguez-v-capri-laundromat-room-limited-liability-company-nysd-2024.