Moody v. Inspire Summits LLC
- Sarah Cave
- 1:20-cv-05834
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
B. Moody v. Inspire Summits LLC: Judge Woods denied without prejudice a request to extend defendants’ deadline to retain counsel and respond.
The order affected defendants Inspire Summits LLC and Christopher P. Skroupa, as well as the plaintiffs’ obligation to serve the order.
What happened
B. Moody and K. O’Brien sued Inspire Summits LLC and Christopher P. Skroupa. The opinion concerns a request by Mr. Skroupa for more time to retain a lawyer and work toward settling the case.
Mr. Skroupa sent the request directly to the court. The court said that private communications with the court are not allowed and filed his email on the case docket. It also explained that a company cannot represent itself in court.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied the request for an extension without prejudice. The court said that any request for Inspire Summits LLC must be submitted through a lawyer and directed the plaintiffs to serve the order on all defendants.
The detailed version
- Moody v. Inspire Summits LLC · No. 1:20-cv-05834
- Sarah Cave
- Dec. 14, 2020
Background
On December 14, 2020, the court received a direct communication from defendant Christopher P. Skroupa. He asked for additional time for the defendants to retain counsel and work on settling the case. The opinion states that private communications with the court are not permitted, except as allowed by the court’s individual civil-practice rules. The court therefore filed Skroupa’s December 14 email on the docket.
The court referred to its December 8, 2020 order, which had denied the parties’ request for defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. That earlier order stated that corporate defendants cannot represent themselves in court. The court explained that requests made on behalf of Inspire Summits LLC must be submitted through counsel, meaning a lawyer representing the company.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied Skroupa’s request for an extension without prejudice. The order does not decide the underlying claims in the case. It also directed the plaintiffs to serve a copy of the order on all defendants and keep proof that service was completed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.