Neal v. 18 Susan CT LLC
- Philip Halpern
- 7:25-cv-00703
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Neal v. 18 Susan CT LLC, Judge Halpern denied requests allowing self-representation and canceling the defendants’ default.
The order affected plaintiffs David Shaun Neal and Cathy Chan, defendant Michael Fernandes, and defendant 18 Susan CT LLC. It denied Fernandes’s attempt to represent the LLC without a lawyer and denied the request to cancel the defendants’ certificate of default.
What happened
In Neal v. 18 Susan CT LLC, David Shaun Neal and Cathy Chan sued 18 Susan CT LLC and Michael Fernandes. The plaintiffs obtained a court clerk’s certificate stating that the defendants had not responded by the deadline.
Fernandes later filed papers for himself and attempted to file papers for the LLC. The court denied the request for Fernandes to represent the LLC without a lawyer and denied the request to cancel the certificate of default. The court noted that Fernandes had not answered the complaint personally and that the LLC could appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney.
Judge Halpern said the plaintiffs planned to seek a default judgment on liability and ordered them to follow the court’s procedures by May 2, 2025.
The detailed version
- Neal v. 18 Susan CT LLC · No. 7:25-cv-00703
- Philip Halpern
- Apr. 2, 2025
Background
David Shaun Neal and Cathy Chan brought the action against 18 Susan CT LLC and Michael Fernandes on January 23, 2025. On March 18, 2025, the plaintiffs obtained a Clerk’s Certificate of Default against the defendants.
On March 31, 2025, Fernandes filed a notice stating that he was appearing without a lawyer for himself. He also filed what purported to be a notice of appearance for 18 Susan CT LLC. An answer filed by the LLC “by its managing member, Michael Fernandes” was also docketed.
Rulings
The court denied, to the extent the filings requested it, Fernandes’s request to appear without a lawyer on behalf of 18 Susan CT LLC. The court explained that a corporation, as an artificial entity, may appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney and may not represent itself.
The court also denied, to the extent the filings requested it, the request to cancel the Clerk’s Certificate of Default entered against the defendants. The court noted that Fernandes had not filed an answer to the complaint on his own behalf.
Next Step
The plaintiffs had indicated that they intended to move for a default judgment as to liability. The court ordered the plaintiffs to comply strictly with Individual Practices Rule 4(B) for obtaining a default judgment against the defendants by May 2, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.