Willis v. Sakayama

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E DL OE CC #T :R ONIC ALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 4/8/2 022 KAREN L. WILLIS, dba HARLEM WEST ENTERTAINMENT and HARLEM WEST MUSIC GROUP, Plaintiff, 1:22-cv-01208-MKV -against- ORDER BOB SAKAYAMA, TNG/EARTHLING, Inc., a New York Corporation, Defendanta. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing the Complaint on February 11, 2022. (Compl. [ECF No. 1]). In the complaint, signed only by Karen L. Willis, Plaintiff asserts that she does business on behalf of Harlem West Entertainment and Harlem West Music Group (collectively “Harlem West”), and that Harlem West “is the exclusive licensee” for the Village People. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 7). On February 15, 2022, the Court advised Plaintiff that, because it is a corporate entity, Harlem West may not proceed pro se. [ECF No. 5]. As such, the Court directed Plaintiff to retain counsel and admonished that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the Complaint for failure to prosecute. [ECF No. 5]. On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed what purports to be a Letter Motion for Reconsideration. [ECF No. 6]. In that Letter Motion, she advises the Court that Plaintiff Karen L.Willis is an individual sole proprietor who merely does business as Harlem West Entertainment and Harlem West Music Group. [ECF No. 6]. She represents that Harlem West Entertainment and Harlem West Music Group are not corporate entities, but merely fictitious business names. [ECF No. 6]. In support, she attaches as an exhibit a Fictitious Business Name Statement that lists both Harlem West Entertainment and Harlem West Music Group. [ECF No. 6]. She therefore asks to be allowed to proceed pro se in this matter. Based on Plaintiff's representations, she may proceed pro se. “[I]t is well settled that a fictitious business name does not establish a separate legal entity.” Cusano v. Horipro Ent. Grp., 301 F. Supp. 2d 272, 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), aff'd, 126 F. App’x 521 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Pinkerton’s, Inc. v. Superior Court, 49 Cal. App. 4th 1342, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 356, 360 (1996) (collecting cases from a variety of jurisdictions)); 7rs. of the Mason Tenders, Dist. Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund & Training Program Fund v. Faulkner, 484 F. Supp. 2d 254, 257 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (“Doing business under another name does not create an entity [distinct] from the [entity] operating the business.” (citation omitted)). Therefore, Plaintiff may proceed pro se on her own behalf. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff at the address of record.

SO ORDERED. Pe i Upubecal Date: April 8, 2022 MAF Y vs VYS OCIL New York, NY United States District Judge