Inga v. Nesama Food Corp.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-00909
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Inga v. Nesma Food Corp., Magistrate Judge Cave ordered former counsel to prove service and gave corporate defendants a final chance to obtain counsel.
Joey Tsai, the defendants, and any corporate defendant required to appear through counsel.
What happened
In Inga v. Nesma Food Corp., the court addressed whether the defendants had received earlier orders after their former lawyer, Joey Tsai, withdrew. The court said no proof of service appeared on the record, although it had no reason to doubt that Tsai had served the defendants.
The court ordered Tsai to file a certificate of service for the withdrawal order and this order by July 16, 2021. It also gave the defendants until July 30, 2021, to tell the court whether new counsel would represent them.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave warned that corporations cannot represent themselves in court and that failing to appear through counsel could lead to a certificate of default and default judgment. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Inga v. Nesama Food Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-00909
- Andrew Carter
- July 9, 2021
Background
During an October 6, 2020 telephone conference, the court instructed Joey Tsai, the defendants’ former lawyer, to serve the defendants with the court’s order granting his motion to withdraw. The court stated that it had no reason to doubt that Tsai had completed service, but no proof of service appeared on the docket.
Orders and deadlines
The court ordered Tsai to file, by July 16, 2021, a certificate of service showing that he had served the defendants with both the withdrawal order and the July 9 order. A certificate of service is a filing that confirms when and how a document was delivered.
The court also gave the defendants one final opportunity, until July 30, 2021, to notify the court whether new counsel would appear for them. The court reminded the defendants that corporations cannot proceed without a lawyer. It warned that failing to appear through counsel could result in entry of default judgment, and that failing to respond to the order could lead first to a certificate of default and then to default judgment.
Disposition
This was a procedural order concerning service, representation, and possible default. The court did not rule on the merits of the plaintiff’s claims or enter default judgment in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.