Velasquez v. Shogy Marketplace Corporation
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-02745
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Velasquez v. Shogy Marketplace: Judge Engelmayer found both defendants in contempt for failing to comply with a settlement-enforcement order.
Luis Velasquez, Shogy Marketplace Corporation, and Hafthadyn Saleh; the order also affects defendants’ counsel and any future request for sanctions or default proceedings.
What happened
In Velasquez v. Shogy Marketplace Corporation, the court had ordered Shogy Marketplace Corporation and Hafthadyn Saleh to pay Luis Velasquez $25,220 under a settlement agreement. Velasquez reported that they had not paid and had not responded to his communications.
The defendants’ lawyer asked to withdraw, explaining that the defendants had not responded to repeated emails. The court required the lawyer to provide information about those communications and the defendants’ failure to comply.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer found Shogy Marketplace Corporation and Hafthadyn Saleh in contempt for failing to participate as ordered in the settlement-enforcement proceedings. The court invited Velasquez to request sanctions, required service of the order on the defendants, and directed Shogy to obtain new counsel by May 5, 2025. Saleh could instead file a notice stating that he would represent himself. If the defendants did not appear as required, the court said it would allow their lawyer to withdraw and Velasquez could begin default proceedings.
The detailed version
- Velasquez v. Shogy Marketplace Corporation · No. 1:24-cv-02745
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 16, 2025
Background
On March 7, 2025, the court granted Luis Velasquez’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement and ordered Shogy Marketplace Corporation and Hafthadyn Saleh to pay him $25,220 immediately. On April 7, Velasquez filed a letter stating that the defendants had not made the required payment and had not responded to his communications.
On April 8, the court ordered the defendants, through their lawyer, to explain why they should not be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with the earlier order. On April 9, the defendants’ lawyer moved to withdraw because the defendants had not responded to repeated communications. The court then required the lawyer to file an affidavit describing those communications and explaining, if possible, why the defendants had not complied. The affidavit reported multiple unanswered emails and stated that counsel did not know of any justification for the noncompliance.
Ruling
The court found Hafthadyn Saleh and Shogy Marketplace Corporation in contempt for failing to participate as ordered in the proceedings to enforce the settlement agreement. The court did not impose a specific sanction in this order. Instead, it invited Velasquez to file an application for appropriate sanctions by May 5, 2025, supported by legal authority.
The court also directed the defendants’ lawyer to serve the order on the defendants and file proof of service by April 18, 2025. Because a corporation cannot represent itself without a lawyer, the court directed Shogy to have new counsel file a notice of appearance by May 5, 2025. The court warned that, after allowing existing counsel to withdraw, it could treat Shogy as in default and as not opposing well-founded requests from Velasquez if Shogy failed to obtain new counsel.
Saleh, as an individual defendant, could choose to represent himself by filing a notice of self-representation that would provide access to the court’s electronic filing system. If the defendants failed to appear through new counsel or, for Saleh, through counsel or self-representation by May 5, the court stated that it would permit Mohammad Faiz Alsawacer, Esq., to withdraw and that Velasquez could then begin default proceedings.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.