Espinoza v. Euro Design and Stone LLC

Background

On February 4, 2021, defendants Salih Ozen and Robert Lala, both proceeding without lawyers, filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint. The court then gave the plaintiffs a choice between filing an amended complaint and opposing those motions. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 23, 2021, and obtained summonses, but the docket did not contain proof that the Second Amended Complaint and summonses had been served on the defendants.

Court’s Orders

The court ordered the plaintiffs to advise it by March 26, 2021, about the status of service. If service had occurred, the plaintiffs had to file proof of service. If it had not occurred, they had to explain whether, when, and how they intended to serve each defendant.

The court modified its earlier deadlines. Within three weeks after the order or after service of the Second Amended Complaint on a defendant, whichever was later, that defendant had to file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or state on the docket that the defendant relied on an earlier motion to dismiss. If Ozen or Lala filed an answer or a new motion to dismiss, the court stated that it would deny that defendant’s earlier motion as moot, meaning no longer requiring a decision. The order set additional deadlines for opposition and reply papers if a new motion to dismiss was filed.

The plaintiffs were ordered to serve every defendant with the order and attachments by overnight courier within one business day and to file proof of that service within two business days. The court also reminded Euro Design and Stone LLC that a company may appear in federal court only through a licensed lawyer and that repeated failure to do so could result in a default judgment. The Clerk was directed to identify Ozen and Lala as proceeding without lawyers and to add their addresses to the docket.

Disposition and Classification

Judge Jesse M. Furman issued a procedural order managing service, representation, and future motion deadlines. The order did not grant or deny the pending motions to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. It is classified as a procedural order because it addressed case administration and service rather than the underlying legal dispute.