Executive Park Partners LLC v. Benicci Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-02560
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Executive Park Partners v. Benicci, Judge Halpern denied Kozhedub’s filing request, required counsel, extended Benicci’s deadline, and struck its purported answer.
Benicci Inc. must obtain a licensed attorney to appear in the case. Vladimir Kozhedub may not file electronically on Benicci’s behalf as a non-attorney. Executive Park Partners LLC must serve the order and file proof of service.
What happened
In Executive Park Partners LLC v. Benicci Inc., Vladimir Kozhedub tried to file an answer, defenses, and counterclaim for Benicci Inc., along with a request to file electronically. The court determined that Kozhedub was not an attorney and intended to represent the corporation.
The court said a corporation must appear in federal court through a licensed attorney. It denied Kozhedub’s electronic-filing request, ordered Benicci to obtain a lawyer, and warned that failing to do so could lead to a default judgment. The clerk was also directed to strike the purported answer, defenses, and counterclaim from the docket.
Judge Halpern extended Benicci’s deadline to respond to the complaint through May 27, 2022. The court also ordered Executive Park Partners to serve the order on Benicci and Kozhedub and file proof of service.
The detailed version
- Executive Park Partners LLC v. Benicci Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-02560
- Philip Halpern
- Apr. 28, 2022
Background
Executive Park Partners LLC filed a return of service stating that Benicci Inc. had been served by delivery to Kevin Jardene, identified as a person in charge at the recipient’s private mailbox. Vladimir Kozhedub later attempted to file a document titled “Defendant’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim” and a motion for permission to file electronically. Kozhedub stated under penalty of perjury that he had submitted a non-attorney electronic-filing registration for the federal court’s PACER system.
Representation ruling
The court determined, based on the available information, that Kozhedub was not an attorney and intended to represent Benicci. It explained that a corporation, as an artificial legal entity, may appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney and may not represent itself without counsel. The court therefore required Benicci to obtain representation through a licensed attorney. It warned that failure to do so may be grounds for a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, but the court did not enter a default judgment in this order.
Orders entered
The court ordered that:
- Benicci’s time to respond to the complaint, through counsel and in accordance with the court’s individual practices, was extended through May 27,
- 2. Kozhedub’s request for permission to file electronically on Benicci’s behalf was denied.
- Executive Park Partners had to serve a copy of the order on Benicci and Kozhedub and file proof of service on the docket on April 29, 2022.
The clerk was directed to remove the docket designations “Counter Claimant” and “Counter Defendant,” because no counterclaims had been properly alleged by counsel, and to strike the purported answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim from the docket while retaining the docket text for the record. The order addressed representation and filing procedures; it did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.