United States v. Accuracy PTE. LTD.

S.D. New York

United States v. Accuracy PTE. LTD.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided March 19, 2026·No. 1:25-cv-10563·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | ELECTRONICALLY FILED

Plaintiff, Scena ‘oni mene aera amma

-against- 25-cv-10563 (LAK) ACCURACY PTE. LTD., Defendant. eel hanna tenet neta a eta ketene

ORDER

LEWIs A. KAPLAN, District Judge. The Court is in receipt of an email from one Mohanrao Thotakura, who describes himself as the chief technology officer of the defendant Accuracy PTE LTD (“Accuracy”). Accuracy is alleged in the complaint, to which no answer has been filed, to be a foreign business entity organized under the laws of and having its principal place of business in Singapore. Mr. Thotakura states that it is not capable of engaging counsel inthe United States, that it has tried but failed to get free legal help here, and that it is not capable of engaging any attorney in the United States. Mr, Thotakura has filed in his own name a purported notice of pro se appearance as defendant. He asks permission to submit an answer “remotely by ourselves.” Mr. Thotakura cannot appear pro se, which of course translates as “for himself,” as he is not personally a party to this case. Nor can he appear on behalf of Accuracy as he is not a member of the Bar of this Court. Indeed, there is no reason to suppose that he is an attorney anywhere. The Court of Appeals, the decisions of which this Court is bound to follow, has written: “The Clerk of Court must enter a default ‘[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend’ an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). A corporation may not appear in federal court pro se, and default may enter against a corporate defendant that fails to defend itself in the action by retaining counsel.” Kaplan y. Bank Saderat PLC, 77 F.4th 110, 116 n.8 (2d Cir. 2023). In consequence, Accuracy must appear by duly qualified counsel or face the possible entry of a default. The request to answer by any other means is denied. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 19, 2026 [ Lewis A. f United States District Judge

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

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | ELECTRONICALLY FILED

Plaintiff, Scena ‘oni mene aera amma

-against- 25-cv-10563 (LAK) ACCURACY PTE. LTD., Defendant. eel hanna tenet neta a eta ketene

ORDER

LEWIs A. KAPLAN, District Judge. The Court is in receipt of an email from one Mohanrao Thotakura, who describes himself as the chief technology officer of the defendant Accuracy PTE LTD (“Accuracy”). Accuracy is alleged in the complaint, to which no answer has been filed, to be a foreign business entity organized under the laws of and having its principal place of business in Singapore. Mr. Thotakura states that it is not capable of engaging counsel inthe United States, that it has tried but failed to get free legal help here, and that it is not capable of engaging any attorney in the United States. Mr, Thotakura has filed in his own name a purported notice of pro se appearance as defendant. He asks permission to submit an answer “remotely by ourselves.” Mr. Thotakura cannot appear pro se, which of course translates as “for himself,” as he is not personally a party to this case. Nor can he appear on behalf of Accuracy as he is not a member of the Bar of this Court. Indeed, there is no reason to suppose that he is an attorney anywhere. The Court of Appeals, the decisions of which this Court is bound to follow, has written: “The Clerk of Court must enter a default ‘[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend’ an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). A corporation may not appear in federal court pro se, and default may enter against a corporate defendant that fails to defend itself in the action by retaining counsel.” Kaplan y. Bank Saderat PLC, 77 F.4th 110, 116 n.8 (2d Cir. 2023). In consequence, Accuracy must appear by duly qualified counsel or face the possible entry of a default. The request to answer by any other means is denied. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 19, 2026 [ Lewis A. f United States District Judge

United States v. Accuracy PTE. LTD., (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Pincite

United States v. Accuracy PTE. LTD. (United States v. Accuracy PTE. LTD.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related