Guzman Aguilar v. Trinidad Motors Corp.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-08413
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Guzman Aguilar v. Trinidad Motors Corp., Judge Abrams extended Defendants’ response deadline and required Trinidad Motors to retain counsel.
Carlos Nelson Guzman Aguilar, Trinidad Motors Corp., Gualbis Trinidad, and Walvin Lora-Trinidad.
What happened
In Guzman Aguilar v. Trinidad Motors Corp., Carlos Nelson Guzman Aguilar sued Trinidad Motors Corp. and Gualbis Trinidad. Both Defendants were served but had not filed answers, and Plaintiff had said he would seek a judgment because they had not responded.
Walvin Lora-Trinidad later sent a letter on Trinidad Motors letterhead asking for more time to respond. The court explained that a person without a lawyer cannot represent a corporation in court, so Trinidad Motors had to retain counsel if it wanted to participate.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted both Defendants more time to answer or otherwise respond by March 17, 2025, and postponed Plaintiff’s deadline to seek a default judgment. Plaintiff also had to serve the order on Defendants and file proof of service.
The detailed version
- Guzman Aguilar v. Trinidad Motors Corp. · No. 1:24-cv-08413
- Ronnie Abrams
- Feb. 4, 2025
Background
On November 5, 2024, Carlos Nelson Guzman Aguilar filed a complaint against Trinidad Motors Corp. and Gualbis Trinidad. The opinion states that both Defendants were served on November 13, 2024, but neither filed an answer. Plaintiff then stated that he would move for default judgment by February 3, 2025.
On January 30, 2025, Walvin Lora-Trinidad submitted a letter identified as filed without a lawyer. The letter said that he was a defendant in the action and requested an extension of time to respond. It was written on Trinidad Motors letterhead and stated in the signature block that he worked there.
Court’s Rulings
The court advised that, to the extent Mr. Lora-Trinidad sought to represent Trinidad Motors himself, he could not do so. A person without a lawyer may not represent a corporation in court. The court therefore stated that Trinidad Motors must retain counsel if it wished to appear in the action.
The court nevertheless granted both Defendants an extension and permitted them to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint no later than March 17, 2025. It also adjourned Plaintiff’s deadline to move for default judgment. Plaintiff was ordered to serve a copy of the order on Defendants by February 10, 2025, and promptly file proof of service on the docket.
Effect of the Order
This was a procedural order concerning representation, response deadlines, and the potential default-judgment schedule. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims in the complaint or enter default judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.