Kyle Bragg, as Trustee v. Fidelis Facility Service Group, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-08291
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kyle Bragg v. Fidelis Facility Service Group, Judge Broderick granted plaintiffs’ request to withdraw their default-judgment motion and file a second amended complaint.
The plaintiffs must file and serve a Second Amended Complaint and serve the order. Fidelis Facility Service Group, Inc. must retain licensed counsel if it intends to appear in the action.
What happened
In Kyle Bragg, as Trustee v. Fidelis Facility Service Group, Inc., the plaintiffs asked to withdraw their motion for default judgment and file a second amended complaint.
The court granted that request. It ordered the plaintiffs to file the amended complaint by June 20, 2022, serve it on Fidelis by June 24, 2022, and file proof of service. The plaintiffs also had to serve the order by May 27, 2022.
Judge Broderick reminded Fidelis that, as a corporation, it could not proceed in federal court without a licensed lawyer. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Kyle Bragg, as Trustee v. Fidelis Facility Service Group, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08291
- Vernon Broderick
- May 20, 2022
Proceeding
The court issued this order after holding a status conference. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Rulings and deadlines
The court granted the plaintiffs’ request to withdraw their motion for default judgment and file a Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs were ordered to:
- file the Second Amended Complaint by June 20, 2022; - serve it on Fidelis Facility Service Group, Inc. by email or another previously effective method by June 24, 2022; and - file an affidavit confirming that service by June 24, 2022.
The plaintiffs were also ordered to serve this order on Fidelis by email or another previously effective method and file an affidavit confirming that service by May 27, 2022.
Representation
The court reminded Fidelis that, because it is a corporation, it may not proceed in federal court without licensed counsel. The court stated that Fidelis would need to retain counsel if it intended to appear in the action.
Effect of the order
This order addressed the plaintiffs’ filing request, service deadlines, and Fidelis’s need for counsel. It did not decide the underlying claims or the withdrawn motion for default judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.