CE LINE ONE CORPORATION LIMITED f/k/a FIVE OCEAN’S TRADING ASIA LIMITED v…
CE LINE ONE CORPORATION LIMITED f/k/a FIVE OCEAN’S TRADING ASIA LIMITED, et al. v. DARREN NEIL MASTERS, et al.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-09889
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In CE LINE ONE CORPORATION LIMITED v. DARREN NEIL MASTERS, Magistrate Judge Wang granted Masters a final extension to oppose sanctions motions.
Darren Neil Masters received additional time to respond to the pending sanctions motions; the plaintiffs were required to serve him with the order and file proof of service.
What happened
In CE LINE ONE CORPORATION LIMITED v. DARREN NEIL MASTERS, Darren Neil Masters, who was representing himself, asked for more time to respond to two pending requests for sanctions. He said he was detained in the United Kingdom and could not travel to the United States to find a lawyer.
The court noted that Masters had not explained why he could not file his response as he had filed other documents. It also noted concerns about the authenticity of a document he submitted. Even so, the court said self-represented parties generally receive extra consideration in following court procedures, especially when important consequences are at stake.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang granted Masters’s request retroactively and ordered him to file his opposition by November 26, 2025, with no further extensions. The plaintiffs had to serve him with the order and file proof of service by November 19, 2025.
The detailed version
- CE LINE ONE CORPORATION LIMITED f/k/a FIVE OCEAN’S TRADING ASIA LIMITED v… · No. 1:24-cv-09889
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 17, 2025
Background
The court considered ECF 100, Darren Neil Masters’s request for an extension of time to answer two pending motions for sanctions, identified as ECF Nos. 84 and 92. Masters was representing himself. He claimed that he was “detained” in the United Kingdom and could not travel to the United States to seek counsel.
The plaintiffs opposed the extension. They argued that Masters had not shown why his claimed detention prevented him from filing a response, since he had filed other documents while representing himself. They also questioned a document Masters submitted, stating that it was unsworn, lacked identifying court information, and visibly contained Microsoft Word tracked changes and comment bubbles.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that self-represented litigants are ordinarily given special consideration, including flexibility in enforcing procedural rules. It also stated that this consideration can be withdrawn after a self-represented party demonstrates repeated bad faith. The court found that Masters had shown bad faith through his refusal to participate in the required conference between the parties, his failure to appear at the initial case-management conference, and his disregard of the court’s order requiring him to attend.
Even so, the court determined that Masters faced significant consequences if he did not respond to the sanctions motions. It therefore allowed a brief extension as a courtesy so that he could prepare a response, whether or not he obtained counsel. The court warned that flexibility with deadlines was limited and did not excuse a complete failure to attend conferences or meet with opposing parties when required.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang granted Masters’s request for an extension to respond to the sanctions motions, retroactively. The court directed Masters to file his opposition no later than November 26, 2025, and stated that there would be no further extensions. The plaintiffs were directed to serve Masters with the order and file proof of service by November 19, 2025. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF 100. The order did not decide the sanctions motions themselves.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.