Schatz v. Binary Bits L.L.C.

S.D. New York

Schatz v. Binary Bits L.L.C.

DecidedAugust 21, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-05361

StatusUnknown

This text of Schatz v. Binary Bits L.L.C. (Schatz v. Binary Bits L.L.C.) 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

Schatz v. Binary Bits L.L.C., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Ea USDC SDNY somal DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: os Sonn EN En HOWARD SCHATZ, et al., Plaintiffs, 23-CV-05361 (PAE)(SN) -against- ORDER BINARY BITS LLC, Defendant.

nnn nnn eX

SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge: On August 16, 2023, the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer referred this case to my docket for general pretrial supervision. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to strike ECF No. 14. ECF No. 14 purports to be Defendant’s answer to the complaint and was filed by Defendant’s managing director, Antonio Evans. ECF No. 15. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is DENIED. Rule 12(f) allows a court to strike from any pleading “any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.” Generally, a motion to strike is appropriate when “no evidence of the allegation would be admissible” or when a pleading’s allegations are “devoid of factual basis.” Weiss v. La Suisse, 131 F. Supp. 2d 446, 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs’ motion is premature. To litigate in federal court, corporate defendants must obtain counsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit I] Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries, for example, that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.”). To date, Defendant Binary Bits LLC has failed to appear through counsel and Antonio Evans does not

appear to be a licensed attorney. Accordingly, Defendant is directed to obtain counsel by September 15, 2023, and respond to the complaint by October 15, 2023. The Court encourages Defendant to contact the NYLAG Legal Clinic at 212-659-6190 to receive free legal assistance. Plaintiffs’ counsel is directed to serve this Order on pro se Defendant and file proof of same on the docket. Finally, the parties are encouraged to engage in good-faith settlement discussions and are reminded that they may contact Courtroom Deputy Rachel Slusher at Rachel_ Slusher@nysd.uscourts.gov to schedule a settlement conference. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No. 15. SO ORDERED. f L Mera SARAH NETBURN United States Magistrate Judge DATED: August 21, 2023 New York, New York

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

Ea USDC SDNY somal DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: os Sonn EN En HOWARD SCHATZ, et al., Plaintiffs, 23-CV-05361 (PAE)(SN) -against- ORDER BINARY BITS LLC, Defendant.

nnn nnn eX

SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge: On August 16, 2023, the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer referred this case to my docket for general pretrial supervision. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to strike ECF No. 14. ECF No. 14 purports to be Defendant’s answer to the complaint and was filed by Defendant’s managing director, Antonio Evans. ECF No. 15. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is DENIED. Rule 12(f) allows a court to strike from any pleading “any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.” Generally, a motion to strike is appropriate when “no evidence of the allegation would be admissible” or when a pleading’s allegations are “devoid of factual basis.” Weiss v. La Suisse, 131 F. Supp. 2d 446, 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs’ motion is premature. To litigate in federal court, corporate defendants must obtain counsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit I] Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries, for example, that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.”). To date, Defendant Binary Bits LLC has failed to appear through counsel and Antonio Evans does not

appear to be a licensed attorney. Accordingly, Defendant is directed to obtain counsel by September 15, 2023, and respond to the complaint by October 15, 2023. The Court encourages Defendant to contact the NYLAG Legal Clinic at 212-659-6190 to receive free legal assistance. Plaintiffs’ counsel is directed to serve this Order on pro se Defendant and file proof of same on the docket. Finally, the parties are encouraged to engage in good-faith settlement discussions and are reminded that they may contact Courtroom Deputy Rachel Slusher at Rachel_ Slusher@nysd.uscourts.gov to schedule a settlement conference. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No. 15. SO ORDERED. f L Mera SARAH NETBURN United States Magistrate Judge DATED: August 21, 2023 New York, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Schatz v. Binary Bits L.L.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schatz-v-binary-bits-llc-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack