Monegro v. Listening Systems, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-01291
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Monegro v. Listening Systems, Judge Ramos denied Listening Systems’ motion to dismiss without prejudice because it lacked a required pre-motion conference and counsel appearance.
Listening Systems, Inc.; Frankie Monegro and the proposed class, whose claims were not decided.
What happened
Frankie Monegro brought Monegro v. Listening Systems, Inc. as a proposed class action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Deborah S. Meyer filed a motion to dismiss for Listening Systems, but the filing did not make clear that she was an attorney, and the company’s counsel had not appeared.
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the motion without prejudice because the company had not requested the pre-motion conference required by the court’s rules. He also advised Listening Systems to have counsel file a notice of appearance and reminded the company that corporations must be represented by counsel.
The detailed version
- Monegro v. Listening Systems, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01291
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 18, 2021
Background
Frankie Monegro filed a proposed class action against Listening Systems, Inc. The complaint alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Motion and procedural issue
Deborah S. Meyer filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of Listening Systems. The court stated that it was not clear from the filing whether Meyer was an attorney and that counsel for Listening Systems had not yet appeared.
The court’s Individual Practices required a party seeking to file a motion to dismiss to request a pre-motion conference first. The opinion states that this requirement had not been followed.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Listening Systems’ motion without prejudice. The court advised Listening Systems to direct counsel to file a notice of appearance and stated that corporations must be represented by counsel. The order did not decide whether Monegro’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the New York City Human Rights Law had merit.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.