Green Harvest Sales, LLC v. Fresh Start Produce, LLC
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-02518
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Green Harvest Sales v. Fresh Start Produce, Judge Aaron ordered the corporate defendants to obtain counsel before their dismissal motion could proceed.
Fresh Start Produce, LLC and Grupo Country USA, LLC must appear through counsel by June 6, 2025; otherwise, the motion to dismiss will be treated as filed only for Juan Camillo Villaveces.
What happened
Green Harvest Sales, LLC sued Fresh Start Produce, LLC and others. Juan Camillo Villaveces, who was representing himself, filed a motion to dismiss for himself and Fresh Start Produce, LLC.
The court explained that a corporate defendant must be represented by a lawyer. It ordered Fresh Start Produce, LLC and Grupo Country USA, LLC to appear through counsel by June 6, 2025. The court did not decide the motion to dismiss.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered that, if counsel did not appear by the deadline, the court would treat the motion to dismiss as filed only for Juan Camillo Villaveces.
The detailed version
- Green Harvest Sales, LLC v. Fresh Start Produce, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-02518
- Analisa Torres
- May 2, 2025
Background
The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, settlement, and dispositive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The opinion states that Juan Camillo Villaveces, a defendant representing himself, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on behalf of himself and Fresh Start Produce, LLC.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that a corporate defendant must be represented by counsel. Because the motion was filed on behalf of corporate defendants without counsel appearing for them, the court ordered Fresh Start Produce, LLC and Grupo Country USA, LLC to appear through counsel by June 6, 2025.
Disposition
Judge Aaron ordered that, if counsel for the corporate defendants did not appear by June 6, 2025, the court would treat the motion to dismiss as made only on behalf of Juan Camillo Villaveces. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not reach the merits of the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.