Vera v. Colgate Deli & Grocery Corp.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARCOS VERA, Plaintiff, – against – ORDER 22-cv-02058 (ER) COLGATE DELI & GROCERY, CORP. d/b/a COLGATE DELI & GROCERY CORP. and MOHAMED DOE, Defendants.

RAMOS, D.J.: On June 26, 2024, Marcos Vera filed a postjudgment motion to compel Defendant Colgate Deli & Grocery Corp. and Defendant Mohamed Abisse to respond to Vera’s information subpoenas. Doc. 25. �e Court set a briefing schedule on the motion. Docs. 26, 27. On August 7, however, the attorneys who previously represented Colgate informed the Court that their firm has not been retained to represent Colgate in postjudgment enforcement matters. Doc. 29. Defendant Colgate, as a corporation, may appear in federal court only through an attorney and cannot appear pro se. See, e.g., Kaplan v. Bank Saderat PLC, 77 F.4th 110, 116 n.8 (2d Cir. 2023); Hounddog Prods., L.L.C. v. Empire Film Grp., Inc., 767 F. Supp. 2d 480, 486 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Accordingly, the briefing schedule set out in the Court’s previous order, Doc. 27, is vacated. Colgate is directed to retain counsel and have them enter an appearance by August 29, 2024. Abisse is directed to either retain counsel or appear pro se by August 29, 2024. If Defendants fail to do so, the Court will treat Vera’s motion to compel as unopposed. Vera is directed to serve a copy of this order on Colgate and Abisse.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2024 : New York, New York Ee \ Dhue EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.D.J.