Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals et al.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-03068
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals, Judge Furman ordered two defendants to explain why they should proceed without lawyers and extended one response deadline.
Ayse R. Civelek doing business as RanasThreadsnTees and Shameem Aslam doing business as StitchSpire, as well as Fox Shiver LLC’s pending motion for fees and service costs.
What happened
In Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals et al., the court learned that Ayse R. Civelek, doing business as RanasThreadsnTees, and Shameem Aslam, doing business as StitchSpire, might not have received an earlier order and appeared to be proceeding without lawyers. The court explained that business entities generally must appear through licensed counsel, although courts sometimes allow sole proprietorships to proceed without a lawyer.
The court required both defendants to explain in writing by September 29, 2025, why they should be allowed to proceed without counsel. It also extended StitchSpire’s deadline to respond to Fox Shiver LLC’s motion for fees and service costs from September 11 to October 17, 2025. The court warned that failing to respond could lead to the fee motion being granted without opposition.
Judge Jesse M. Furman directed the Clerk to list both defendants as parties without counsel and mail them this order and the earlier order. The court said that if they do not explain by the deadline, it may strike their answers and treat them as in default.
The detailed version
- Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals et al. · No. 1:25-cv-03068
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 15, 2025
Background
The court stated that its earlier order, docketed at ECF No. 95, may not have been served on Ayse R. Civelek doing business as RanasThreadsnTees and Shameem Aslam doing business as StitchSpire. Those defendants appeared to be proceeding without lawyers.
Court’s Reasoning
The court explained that corporations, partnerships, associations, and other artificial entities generally may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. Repeated failure of an entity to appear through counsel may support a default judgment. The court also noted that courts have allowed sole proprietorships to proceed without a lawyer because a sole proprietorship has no legal existence separate from its owner. The order did not decide whether RanasThreadsnTees or StitchSpire qualifies for that exception.
Orders
By September 29, 2025, Civelek and Aslam were required to show cause in writing—meaning explain why the court should permit them to proceed without counsel. If they did not do so, the court stated that it may strike their answers and deem them in default.
The court extended StitchSpire’s deadline to respond to Fox Shiver LLC’s motion seeking fees and costs incurred in serving process. The original deadline was September 11, 2025, and the new deadline was October 17, 2025. The extension was made effective retroactively, and the court warned that failing to respond could result in Fox Shiver LLC’s motion being granted as unopposed.
The Clerk was directed to add Civelek doing business as RanasThreadsnTees and Aslam doing business as StitchSpire as parties proceeding without counsel, using the address information in their answers, and to mail them this order and the order at ECF No. 95.
Disposition and Classification
The court issued an administrative and procedural order concerning representation, possible default, service of prior orders, and a deadline for responding to a fee motion. It did not decide the underlying claims or the fee motion. The classification is therefore procedural_order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.