Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 8, 2025

Yang v. Media

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:25-cv-00004
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Stephen Yang v. Inventus Media, Judge Engelmayer ordered Inventus Media to obtain counsel by November 7 or face lifting the stay and consideration of default judgment.

Who this affects

Inventus Media, Inc. must obtain a lawyer and have that lawyer formally appear by November 7, 2025. If it does not, the court may lift the existing stay and consider Stephen Yang’s motion for default judgment.

What happened

In Stephen Yang v. Inventus Media, Inc., Inventus Media asked for a second 30-day pause in the case so the parties could continue settlement discussions. The filing said the court had already paused the case on September 8, 2025, and that Inventus had made three settlement proposals.

The court noted that Inventus Media is a corporation and had not retained a lawyer. The order states that a corporation cannot represent itself in federal court.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer gave Inventus Media until November 7, 2025, to obtain counsel and have that lawyer formally enter the case. The order says that otherwise the court would lift the existing pause and consider Stephen Yang’s motion for default judgment. The order does not expressly say that the second motion to pause the case was granted or denied.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Yang v. Media · No. 1:25-cv-00004
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Oct. 8, 2025

Background

Inventus Media, Inc. filed a second motion asking the court to stay, or pause, all proceedings and deadlines for 30 days while the parties continued settlement discussions. The motion stated that the court had granted an earlier stay on September 8, 2025, that the parties had continued negotiating, and that Inventus had submitted three settlement proposals. Inventus asserted that another stay could conserve judicial resources and reduce litigation expenses.

Issue

The court addressed Inventus Media’s failure to retain counsel. The opinion states that Inventus is a corporation and that a corporation cannot proceed without a lawyer in federal court. The text does not describe the underlying claims in Stephen Yang’s case.

Ruling

The court ordered Inventus Media to obtain counsel by November 7, 2025, and to have that attorney formally appear on its behalf. The court stated that otherwise it would lift the existing stay, identified as Docket Entry 26, and consider Stephen Yang’s motion for default judgment, identified as Docket Entry 14.

The order does not expressly state whether Inventus Media’s second motion for a 30-day stay was granted or denied. It also does not enter default judgment or decide the merits of the underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.