Laurice El Badry Rahme Ltd v. MoBetter Deals LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-06095
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Laurice El Badry Rahme Ltd v. MoBetter Deals LLC, Judge Abrams denied the stay motion, restricted access to it, and set counsel and response deadlines.
MoBetter Deals LLC and MoBetter Enterprise & Investment LLC must obtain counsel by September 16, 2022, and respond to the complaint by September 30, 2022. Access to their stay motion is limited to the parties and the court.
What happened
Laurice El Badry Rahme Ltd sued MoBetter Deals LLC and MoBetter Enterprise & Investment LLC. The companies’ chief executive officer, Aikido C. Graves-Bey, filed a motion seeking to pause the case after the companies’ attorney stopped representing them. The motion included communications from settlement discussions.
Laurice opposed the motion. It argued that the companies could not file a motion without a licensed lawyer and that the settlement communications should not be publicly available under Federal Rule of Evidence 408. Laurice did not object to giving the companies more time to hire new counsel and respond to the complaint.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the motion to stay. She ordered the companies to obtain counsel by September 16, 2022, and to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by September 30, 2022. Because the motion contained settlement communications, the court restricted access to it so that only the parties and the court could view it and terminated the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- Laurice El Badry Rahme Ltd v. MoBetter Deals LLC · No. 1:22-cv-06095
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 16, 2022
Background
Laurice El Badry Rahme Ltd. brought this action against MoBetter Deals LLC and MoBetter Enterprise & Investment LLC. Aikido C. Graves-Bey, identified in the filing as the chief executive officer of both defendants, filed a motion to stay the action. The plaintiff’s response stated that Graves-Bey was not a party or an attorney and that the defendants’ attorney had stopped representing them. The motion also referred to and attached communications from settlement negotiations.
Plaintiff’s position
The plaintiff argued that the stay motion was procedurally improper because the defendant limited liability companies were attempting to appear without a licensed attorney. It also asked the court to remove the motion from public access because it contained settlement communications covered by Federal Rule of Evidence 408, which generally limits the use of compromise negotiations to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim. The plaintiff did not object to extending the defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint so they could obtain new counsel.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the motion to stay. Citing Second Circuit authority, the court stated that corporations cannot appear in federal court without counsel and ordered the corporate defendants to obtain counsel by September 16, 2022. The court also gave the defendants until September 30, 2022, to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.
Because the motion contained settlement communications, the court directed the Clerk of Court to restrict access to docket entry 13 so that it could be viewed only by the parties and the court. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the motion pending at that docket entry and to serve the order on the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.