Vera v. Colgate Deli & Grocery Corp.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-02058
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vera v. Colgate Deli & Grocery, Judge Ramos vacated the briefing schedule and ordered defendants to address representation before deciding Vera’s motion to compel.
Marcos Vera, Colgate Deli & Grocery Corp., and the individual defendant referred to as Mohamed Abisse in the opinion text. The case caption identifies that individual as Mohamed Doe.
What happened
In Vera v. Colgate Deli & Grocery Corp., Marcos Vera asked the court to require Colgate Deli & Grocery Corp. and another defendant to respond to information subpoenas after judgment. The motion had been assigned a briefing schedule.
The attorneys who had represented Colgate told the court that their firm had not been retained for postjudgment enforcement matters. The court explained that a corporation must appear in federal court through a lawyer, while an individual may appear without a lawyer.
Judge Ramos vacated the existing briefing schedule. He ordered Colgate to retain a lawyer and have that lawyer enter an appearance by August 29, 2024, and ordered the other defendant to retain a lawyer or appear without one by the same date. If they did not comply, the court would treat Vera’s motion as unopposed.
The detailed version
- Vera v. Colgate Deli & Grocery Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-02058
- Edgardo Ramos
- Aug. 8, 2024
Background
Marcos Vera filed a postjudgment motion asking the court to compel Colgate Deli & Grocery Corp. and Mohamed Abisse to respond to information subpoenas. The court had previously set a schedule for briefing the motion.
Representation issue
The attorneys who had previously represented Colgate notified the court that their firm had not been retained to represent Colgate in postjudgment enforcement matters. The court stated that a corporation may appear in federal court only through an attorney and may not represent itself.
Order
The court vacated the briefing schedule from its previous order. Colgate was directed to retain counsel and have counsel enter an appearance by August 29, 2024. Abisse was directed to retain counsel or appear without counsel by that date. If the defendants failed to comply, the court would treat Vera’s motion to compel as unopposed. Vera was directed to serve a copy of the order on Colgate and Abisse.
The order did not decide the merits of Vera’s motion to compel.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.