Tokareva v. Security Service Provider Corp.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 7, 2020·No. 1:20-cv-09867·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ASYA TOKAREVA, Plaintiff, ORDER — against — 20 Civ. 9867 (ER) SECURITY SERVICE PROVIDER CORP., Defendant.

RAMOS, D.J.: On December 2, 2020, Defendant, through its alleged owner, filed a letter requesting to proceed pro se in the instant suit. Doc. 7. This Circuit has made clear that “a layperson may not represent a separate legal entity such as a corporation.” Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 2007). Accordingly, “a company may not appear pro se but rather must be represented by counsel.” Omega Consulting v. Farrington Mfg. Co., 604 F. Supp. 2d 684, 684 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Defendant’s request to appear without counsel is therefore denied. Failure to have counsel appear on behalf of the corporation may result in the entry of a default judgment against Defendant.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2020 oi ) New York, New York ee a EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.D.J.

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

Tokareva v. Security Service Provider Corp., (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Tokareva v. Security Service Provider Corp. (Tokareva v. Security Service Provider Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lattanzio v. Comta
481 F.3d 137 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Omega Consulting v. FARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY
604 F. Supp. 2d 684 (S.D. New York, 2009)