Rivera v. JM Family Child Day Care LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-01930
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Rivera v. JM Family Child Day Care LLC: Judge Woods granted in part and denied in part requests for more time to respond.
Jose Marte received more time to respond personally, while JM Family Child Day Care LLC did not receive the requested extension because it must appear through a licensed attorney.
What happened
In Rivera v. JM Family Child Day Care LLC, Carmen Maribel Rivera sued JM Family Child Day Care LLC and Jose Marte. Marte asked for more time to respond to the complaint for himself and the business.
The court granted Marte an extension for his own response, setting his deadline for June 20, 2025. It denied without prejudice his request for an extension on behalf of JM Family Care because a limited liability company must appear in federal court through a licensed attorney.
Judge Woods also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied special fee-free appeal status. The clerk was directed to mail the order to each defendant.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. JM Family Child Day Care LLC · No. 1:25-cv-01930
- Gregory Woods
- June 13, 2025
Background
Carmen Maribel Rivera filed a complaint against JM Family Child Day Care LLC, doing business as JM Family Care, and Jose Marte. The complaint alleges that Marte owns JM Family Care. Marte later filed a letter seeking more time to respond to the lawsuit and stating that he needed time to find an attorney to represent his business. The court understood the letter as requesting an extension for both defendants.
Ruling on the Extension Request
The court granted in part and denied in part Marte’s request. It granted Marte’s request, on his own behalf, for more time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. His deadline was extended to June 20, 2025.
The court denied without prejudice Marte’s request for an extension on behalf of JM Family Care. The court explained that a limited liability company may appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney. Because Marte could not request an extension for the company, the court denied that part of the request without prejudice.
Appeal and Administrative Directions
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that purpose. Judge Woods directed the clerk to mail a copy of the order to each defendant.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.