Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Meza
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-08658
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Meza, Judge Furman gave five defaulting defendants one extension to respond and set a pretrial conference.
The order directly affected Deogene Meza, Melody Meza, Futures Group IT LLC, Futures Group Holdings Inc., and Futures Group Staffing Solutions, Inc. by extending their deadline to answer or respond and requiring them to attend the scheduled pretrial conference. It also imposed service and conference-related requirements on Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company and all parties.
What happened
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Meza began with the plaintiff and two defendants appearing at an initial conference. Five other defendants—Deogene Meza, Melody Meza, Futures Group IT LLC, Futures Group Holdings Inc., and Futures Group Staffing Solutions, Inc.—had been served but had not answered or otherwise responded and were in default.
The court gave those five defendants a one-time extension, retroactive to March 16, 2020, to answer or respond to the complaint. The court also scheduled an initial pretrial conference for March 26, 2020, and required the plaintiff to serve the order on those defendants.
Judge Furman explained that the extension would allow the case to be addressed on its merits rather than immediately proceeding toward a default judgment. He also stated that the Mezas could represent themselves, but the three companies could appear in federal court only through licensed lawyers.
The detailed version
- Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Meza · No. 1:19-cv-08658
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
At an initial conference held on February 13, 2020, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company and defendants Eric Rosenthal and Nicholas Cascio appeared. The court stated that Deogene Meza, Melody Meza, Futures Group IT LLC, Futures Group Holdings Inc., and Futures Group Staffing Solutions, Inc. had been served with the summons and First Amended Complaint but had not entered appearances or answered or otherwise responded. The court therefore described those five defendants as being in default.
The court also considered an email from Deogene Meza stating that Deogene and Melody Meza intended to participate in the case and were seeking lawyers. The court said it was unclear whether the email also applied to the three Futures Group defendants, which the complaint allegedly identifies as having Deogene and Melody Meza as officers and sole members.
Ruling
The court granted Deogene Meza, Melody Meza, Futures Group IT LLC, Futures Group Holdings Inc., and Futures Group Staffing Solutions, Inc. a one-time extension of the deadline to answer or respond to the complaint, retroactive to March 16, 2020. The court stated that no further extensions would be granted. It explained that the extension reflected a preference for deciding the case on its merits rather than proceeding with default-judgment proceedings.
The court scheduled all parties to appear for an initial pretrial conference on March 26, 2020, at 3:30 p.m. It directed the parties to follow the procedures in the court’s earlier order, including filing a joint letter and a proposed case-management and scheduling plan by the Thursday before the conference.
The court directed Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company to serve a copy of the order on the five defendants by certified mail and email within two business days and to file proof of service within one day after service.
Representation and Procedural Information
The order stated that the Mezas could choose to represent themselves, meaning proceed without lawyers, but would need to notify the court if they did so. It provided instructions for communications and filings by self-represented parties and described a pro se law clinic operated by the New York Legal Assistance Group.
The court warned that limited liability companies and corporations may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. It stated that if the three Futures Group defendants failed to obtain counsel, a default judgment could be entered against them. This order did not decide the underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.