Contreras v. Pure Seasons, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-00130
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Contreras v. Pure Seasons, Judge Vyskocil declined to consider the corporation’s uncounseled dismissal motion and ordered service documentation.
Yensy Contreras and Pure Seasons, Inc.; the order requires Contreras to document service and addresses Pure Seasons’s need to appear through counsel.
What happened
In Contreras v. Pure Seasons, Inc., Yensy Contreras alleged that Pure Seasons’s website was not fully accessible to visually impaired individuals, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City Human Rights Law.
Pure Seasons submitted a dismissal motion, letters, and a declaration through an employee who was not an attorney. The court said it could not consider those filings because corporations must appear through counsel, but denied Contreras’s request to strike the motion from the docket.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered Contreras to file proof that the summons and complaint had been served by March 1, 2022. The court said it intended to extend Pure Seasons’s response deadline if service was proper and the company chose to retain counsel, and warned that failing to retain counsel could lead to default judgment.
The detailed version
- Contreras v. Pure Seasons, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00130
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 24, 2022
Background
Yensy Contreras brought the lawsuit individually and on behalf of similarly situated people. She alleged that Pure Seasons, Inc. did not provide a fully accessible website for visually impaired individuals, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
No attorney had appeared for Pure Seasons. An individual employee filed a notice of motion to dismiss on the company’s behalf, followed by a declaration and letter supporting the motion. Contreras opposed the filing and asked the court to strike the notice because a corporation had submitted it without counsel.
Ruling
The court explained that corporations may not appear in federal court without an attorney. Because the motion and related filings were submitted by a non-attorney on Pure Seasons’s behalf, the court stated that it could not and would not consider them. The court denied Contreras’s request to strike the notice of motion to dismiss from the docket.
The court ordered Contreras to file an affidavit of service for the summons and complaint by March 1, 2022. It stated that it intended to extend Pure Seasons’s time to respond so that the company could retain counsel, if it had been properly served and chose to do so. The court warned that failing to retain counsel could be grounds for default judgment for failure to defend. The Clerk was asked to terminate the letter motion at ECF No. 5.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not decide whether Pure Seasons violated the Americans with Disabilities Act or the New York City Human Rights Law, and it did not rule on the merits of the dismissal arguments.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.