Beijing CRS Metallurgical Machinery Co. Ltd v. Orient Commercial Joint Stock…
Beijing CRS Metallurgical Machinery Co. Ltd v. Orient Commercial Joint Stock Bank
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-05617
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Beijing CRS Metallurgical Machinery v. Orient Commercial, Judge Liman extended Orient Commercial’s response deadline and required court-admitted counsel.
Orient Commercial Joint Stock Bank must respond by October 6, 2025 through counsel admitted to the court’s bar or specially admitted for the case; Beijing CRS Metallurgical Machinery Co. Ltd must serve the order and file proof of service.
What happened
In Beijing CRS Metallurgical Machinery Co. Ltd v. Orient Commercial Joint Stock Bank, the court had directed Orient Commercial to oppose the petition by September 8, 2025. Orient Commercial filed a document on that date, apparently appearing in the case.
The court noted that the filing did not show that an attorney admitted to practice in the court had filed it. The court advised that a corporation may appear in the court only through an attorney admitted there or specially admitted for the case.
The court extended Orient Commercial’s time to respond to October 6, 2025. It also ordered Beijing CRS Metallurgical Machinery Co. Ltd to serve the order on Orient Commercial and file proof of service. Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order.
The detailed version
- Beijing CRS Metallurgical Machinery Co. Ltd v. Orient Commercial Joint Stock… · No. 1:25-cv-05617
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 16, 2025
Background
On August 7, 2025, the court directed Orient Commercial Joint Stock Bank to file its opposition to the petition by September 8, 2025. Orient Commercial filed a document on September 8, which apparently constituted an appearance in the case. The court stated that the filing did not indicate that it had been made by counsel admitted to the Southern District of New York.
Court’s Ruling
The court advised that a corporation may be heard in the court only through counsel admitted to the court’s bar or counsel admitted pro hac vice, meaning specially admitted to practice in that particular case. The court extended Orient Commercial’s time to respond, retroactively, to October 6, 2025.
The court also ordered Beijing CRS Metallurgical Machinery Co. Ltd to serve a copy of the order on Orient Commercial and file proof of service on the docket. The opinion does not decide the petition itself.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.