Heights in Paris LLC v. Almanzar
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-03224
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Heights in Paris LLC v. Almanzar, Judge Swain closed the case because the LLC had not obtained counsel to represent it.
Heights in Paris LLC, whose action was closed because counsel had not appeared; the order also terminated the pending motions and denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal.
What happened
In Heights in Paris LLC v. Almanzar, the court had previously dismissed the action without prejudice to Heights in Paris retaining counsel within 30 days. The court explained that corporations, nonprofit organizations, and other artificial entities cannot represent themselves in court.
Heights in Paris filed an amended complaint while still representing itself and identified itself as “Glotsip, LLC d/b/a Heights in Paris.” No lawyer appeared for the plaintiff.
The court ordered the action closed and said a lawyer who appears for Heights in Paris may ask to reopen it. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions, denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Heights in Paris LLC v. Almanzar · No. 1:22-cv-03224
- Laura Swain
- June 16, 2022
Background
The court had previously dismissed the action without prejudice to Plaintiff Heights in Paris LLC retaining counsel within 30 days. That order explained that corporations, nonprofit organizations, and other artificial entities cannot proceed without a lawyer. Heights in Paris then filed an amended complaint while proceeding without counsel and listed itself as “Glotsip, LLC d/b/a Heights in Paris.” The opinion states that no counsel had appeared for the plaintiff.
Ruling
Because counsel had not appeared for Heights in Paris, the court ordered that the action be closed. The court stated that counsel who appears for the plaintiff may move to reopen the action. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions, including the motion for permission for electronic filing.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. As a result, it denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not address the merits of the claims in the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.