Herrera Isidoro v. La Fonda Restaurant and Tapas Bar Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-05066
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Herrera Isidoro v. La Fonda, Judge Briccetti ordered that, absent counsel for La Fonda, plaintiff would be ordered to seek default judgment.
La Fonda Restaurant and Tapas Bar Inc. was required to obtain counsel or face a future order requiring the plaintiff to seek default judgment. The order also affected the parties’ discovery dispute and directed notice to the self-represented defendants Jorge Ayala and Denisse Ayala Garcia.
What happened
In Herrera Isidoro v. La Fonda Restaurant and Tapas Bar Inc., the restaurant had been without a lawyer since March 6, 2019. The court had repeatedly told the defendants that a corporation cannot appear in federal court without a lawyer, even though individuals may represent themselves.
The court said that if La Fonda did not have a lawyer at the February 21, 2020, conference, it would order the plaintiff to seek default judgment against La Fonda. The court also said it would address the parties’ discovery dispute at that conference.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not enter default judgment in this order. The clerk was directed to mail the order to the self-represented defendants Jorge Ayala and Denisse Ayala Garcia.
The detailed version
- Herrera Isidoro v. La Fonda Restaurant and Tapas Bar Inc. · No. 7:18-cv-05066
- Vincent Briccetti
- Feb. 6, 2020
Background
Raquel Herrera Isidoro brought the case on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees against La Fonda Restaurant and Tapas Bar Inc., doing business as La Fonda Bo Ri Cua, Denisse Ayala Garcia, and Jorge Ayala. The opinion states that La Fonda had been without counsel since March 6, 2019. Jorge Ayala had continued to provide reasons for not retaining a lawyer for the corporation.
The court had repeatedly reminded the defendants that corporations, partnerships, and limited liability companies cannot appear in federal court without counsel. It also stated that a nonlawyer cannot act on behalf of a company. The court cited decisions addressing those rules and the possibility of default judgment when a corporate defendant willfully disregards a court order.
Order concerning La Fonda
The court ordered that, if no attorney entered an appearance for La Fonda by the in-person conference scheduled for February 21, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., the court would order the plaintiff to seek default judgment against La Fonda. Default judgment is a judgment that may be entered against a party that fails to defend the case, but this order did not itself enter default judgment.
Discovery and notice
The court stated that it would address the parties’ discovery dispute at the February 21 conference. The clerk was instructed to mail a copy of the order to the self-represented defendants Jorge Ayala and Denisse Ayala Garcia at the addresses listed in the docket.
Disposition
This was a procedural order addressing corporate representation, a possible future request for default judgment, and discovery. It did not decide the underlying claims described in the opinion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.