Christmas v. North American Tower Corporation
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-06630
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Christmas v. North American Tower, Judge Woods declined to act on a proposed extension order because the parties did not follow court rules.
The plaintiff, the individual defendants, and NATC Tower Corporation and North American Tower Corporation were affected by the court’s instructions concerning the proposed deadline extension, corporate representation, and service of the order.
What happened
In Christmas v. North American Tower Corporation, the parties submitted a proposed consent order asking for more time for the defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.
The court did not act on the proposed order because the parties did not follow the court’s rules requiring extension requests to be made by letter and, when applicable, accompanied by a joint letter.
Judge Woods directed the parties to follow those rules and reiterated that NATC Tower Corporation and North American Tower Corporation must be represented by a licensed lawyer in the case. He also directed the plaintiff to serve the order on all defendants and keep proof of service.
The detailed version
- Christmas v. North American Tower Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-06630
- Gregory Woods
- Nov. 3, 2022
Background
The parties filed a proposed consent order seeking an extension of the defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The proposed order was filed on November 3, 2022, as docket entry 23. Michael Holoday signed it for himself and as “the owner and principal of NATC Tower Corporation and North American Tower Corporation.”
Court’s Rules
The court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases require requests for extensions of time to be made by letter. They also require proposed orders to be accompanied by a joint letter and warn that the court may not act on a proposed stipulation or order without one.
Ruling
The court declined to act on the proposed consent order because the parties failed to comply with those rules. The court directed the parties to comply with the rules if they sought an extension. The court also reiterated that NATC Tower Corporation and North American Tower Corporation must be represented by a licensed attorney in the action because corporations may not appear in federal court without one. Finally, the court directed the plaintiff to serve a copy of the order on all defendants and retain proof of service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.