Tokareva v. Security Service Provider Corp.

S.D. New York

Tokareva v. Security Service Provider Corp.

DecidedDecember 7, 2020

Docket1:20-cv-09867

StatusUnknown

This text of Tokareva v. Security Service Provider Corp. (Tokareva v. Security Service Provider Corp.) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tokareva v. Security Service Provider Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tokareva-v-security-service-provider-corp-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack