Jordan v. Golden Bridge Books
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-06154
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Jordan v. Golden Bridge Books, Judge Engelmayer advised the entity to obtain counsel and ordered service and responses by specified dates.
Golden Bridge Books was advised that it needed a lawyer to defend itself and to formally state its position if it wished to be heard on Jordan’s request for a temporary restraining order. Jordan was directed to file proof of service by January 26, 2023, and was invited to respond by January 30, 2023.
What happened
In Jordan v. Golden Bridge Books, the court addressed Golden Bridge Books’ emailed response to Portia Hartencia Jordan’s request for a temporary restraining order. The court did not decide whether Jordan was entitled to that temporary relief or resolve the underlying dispute.
The court explained that Golden Bridge Books is an entity and therefore may defend itself only through a lawyer. Because no lawyer had formally appeared for Golden Bridge Books, the court advised it to promptly obtain legal representation if it wished to be heard on Jordan’s request. The court also directed Jordan to file proof that she served the order on Golden Bridge Books by January 26, 2023, and invited Jordan to respond by January 30, 2023, to factual statements in Golden Bridge Books’ letter.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued the order. The order set representation and filing requirements but made no ruling on the temporary restraining order, the copyright allegations, or the factual accusations in Golden Bridge Books’ letter.
The detailed version
- Jordan v. Golden Bridge Books · No. 1:22-cv-06154
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 25, 2023
Background
The court received an emailed letter and exhibits from defendant Golden Bridge Books in response to plaintiff Portia Hartencia Jordan’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The letter disputed Jordan’s allegations and made factual assertions about the sale and shipment of two used copies of a book. Those assertions were made by Golden Bridge Books; the order did not resolve their truth.
Representation of the Defendant
The court stated that, according to the complaint, Golden Bridge Books is the sole defendant and is an entity rather than an individual. Relying on the rule that a nonlawyer may not represent a separate legal entity such as a corporation, the court explained that Golden Bridge Books could defend itself only through counsel. The letter did not indicate that counsel represented Golden Bridge Books, and no lawyer had formally appeared for it on the court’s electronic filing system.
Court’s Directions
Because Jordan’s request for temporary relief was pending, the court advised Golden Bridge Books that, if it wished to be heard, it should promptly obtain legal representation. The lawyer would also need to formally appear and state Golden Bridge Books’ legal position on the pending motion.
The court directed Jordan to file proof that she served the order on Golden Bridge Books by January 26, 2023. Because Golden Bridge Books’ letter contained factual statements potentially relevant to Jordan’s motion, the court invited Jordan to respond; that response was due January 30, 2023.
Disposition and Scope
The order did not grant or deny Jordan’s motion for a temporary restraining order. It also did not decide the underlying copyright dispute, the factual allegations in the parties’ submissions, or any request for damages or other relief. Its action was limited to addressing Golden Bridge Books’ representation and setting service and response requirements.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.