Peru v. United Nations Office for Project Services
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-08857
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Consorcio Gran Evento Peru v. United Nations Office for Project Services: Judge Vyskocil dismissed the case without prejudice because CGEP lacked counsel.
Consorcio Gran Evento Peru’s case was dismissed without prejudice and terminated because the business did not retain counsel; the contract dispute itself was not decided.
What happened
Consorcio Gran Evento Peru v. United Nations Office for Project Services concerned a contract dispute that was pending in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in New York. Consorcio Gran Evento Peru, a business consortium, brought the case through Doris Diana Melgar, who did not say she was an attorney.
The court had warned that a business entity could not appear in court without a lawyer and gave Consorcio Gran Evento Peru until December 1, 2025, to retain counsel. The entity did not do so, and Melgar continued filing papers on its behalf.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the claim without prejudice and terminated the case. The court did not decide the underlying contract dispute.
The detailed version
- Peru v. United Nations Office for Project Services · No. 1:25-cv-08857
- Vyskocil
- Dec. 3, 2025
Background
Consorcio Gran Evento Peru (CGEP) brought an action against the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) concerning a contract dispute pending in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in New York. CGEP initiated the action through its “legal representative,” Doris Diana Melgar. The opinion states that CGEP is a Peruvian business “consortium” and that Melgar did not assert that she was an attorney.
Representation Requirement
On November 11, 2025, the court explained that Melgar could not bring suit on CGEP’s behalf and that corporations, partnerships, associations, and other artificial entities generally may not appear in court without an attorney. The court warned that CGEP’s claims would be dismissed without prejudice unless it retained counsel by December 1, 2025.
CGEP did not retain counsel. Melgar continued filing documents on CGEP’s behalf, including filings stating that CGEP was appearing without counsel. An affidavit also stated that CGEP had tried to obtain legal representation but that multiple law firms declined because of conflicts involving UNOPS and the United Nations.
Ruling
The court dismissed CGEP’s claim without prejudice because CGEP continued to proceed without an attorney. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entries 9 and 10 and to terminate the case. The order did not resolve the underlying contract dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.