Espinoza v. Euro Design and Stone LLC
- Sarah Cave
- 1:20-cv-04381
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Espinoza v. Euro Design and Stone, Judge Furman ordered written filings through the pro se unit and required plaintiffs to serve defendants by November 16.
The order directly affected Defendant Salih Ozen, any other unrepresented parties, the defendant corporate entities, and the plaintiffs, who were required to serve the order and file proof of service.
What happened
In Calvin Adony Mariano Espinoza et al. v. Euro Design and Stone LLC et al., the court addressed how an unrepresented defendant must communicate with the court. It stated that Salih Ozen, also known as Kadir Ozen, could not call the court directly and had to submit written communications through the Pro Se Intake Unit.
The order explained filing and electronic-service options for parties without lawyers. It also warned that a company may appear in federal court only through a licensed lawyer and that repeated failure to do so may lead to a default judgment against the company. The court also identified a separate legal clinic that might assist defendants but could not accept court filings.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the plaintiffs to serve each defendant with a copy of the order and file proof of service by November 16, 2020. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Espinoza v. Euro Design and Stone LLC · No. 1:20-cv-04381
- Sarah Cave
- Nov. 10, 2020
Background
The court received several voicemail messages from Defendant Salih Ozen, also known as Kadir Ozen. The order states that Ozen was proceeding without a lawyer.
Court communications and filings
The court ordered that communications with it must be in writing. Because Ozen was unrepresented, his communications had to be submitted through the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit rather than by calling the court directly. The order described options for submitting filings by email, mail, or delivery to designated court locations. It also stated that unrepresented parties could choose electronic service of court documents, subject to the court’s registration requirements.
Corporate representation
The court cautioned the defendants that an individual may appear without a lawyer, but a corporate entity may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. Citing Second Circuit precedent, the court stated that a default judgment may be entered against a corporate entity that repeatedly fails to appear through counsel.
Legal clinic
The order noted that the Pro Se Law Clinic in the district, operated by the New York Legal Assistance Group, might provide advice to defendants. It emphasized that the clinic was separate from the court and could not accept filings for the court.
Disposition
The court ordered the plaintiffs to serve each defendant with a copy of the order and to file proof of that service by November 16, 2020. This was a procedural order about communications, representation, and service; it did not resolve the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.