Becerro v. El Vato Wine Corp.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-09637
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Becerro v. El Vato Wine Corp., Judge Broderick ordered the company to hire a lawyer, required Ladislav Kulisek to state his representation plans, and paused deadlines.
El Vato Wine Corporation had to retain counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance. Ladislav Kulisek had to state whether he intended to proceed without a lawyer or retain counsel. All case deadlines were stayed until March 7, 2023.
What happened
In Becerro v. El Vato Wine Corp., Jorge Becerro sued El Vato Wine Corporation and Ladislav Kulisek. After the defendants were served, Jack Zahran filed a waiver of service and later filed an answer for them.
The court said the document labeled as El Vato Wine Corporation’s answer could not be treated as an answer because a corporation must be represented by a lawyer in federal court. The court also required Kulisek to say whether he intended to proceed without a lawyer.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered El Vato Wine Corporation to retain counsel and have that lawyer file a notice of appearance by March 7, 2023. Kulisek had to state his plans by March 1, 2023, and any lawyer for him had to file a notice of appearance by March 7, 2023. The court stayed all case deadlines until March 7, 2023.
The detailed version
- Becerro v. El Vato Wine Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-09637
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 14, 2023
Background
Jorge Becerro filed a complaint against El Vato Wine Corporation, doing business as Bazar Tapas Bar, and Ladislav Kulisek. The complaint was filed on November 11, 2022. The record states that the defendants were served on November 15, 2022, making their answer due on December 6, 2022.
After the defendants did not answer or otherwise respond by that date, the court directed Becerro to file for default judgment. The next day, Jack Zahran filed a waiver of service on behalf of the defendants, extending their deadline to answer to February 13, 2023. On February 10, 2023, Zahran filed an answer on behalf of the defendants.
Court’s Analysis
The court ruled that the document labeled as El Vato Wine Corporation’s answer could not be considered an answer in the case. The court explained that corporations cannot represent themselves in federal court and must appear through counsel. The opinion does not otherwise decide the claims in Becerro’s complaint.
Orders
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered El Vato Wine Corporation to retain counsel and required the corporation’s lawyer to file a notice of appearance by March 7, 2023.
The court separately ordered Ladislav Kulisek to indicate by March 1, 2023, whether he intended to proceed without a lawyer. If Kulisek intended to retain counsel, his lawyer had to file a notice of appearance by March 7, 2023.
The court also stayed all deadlines in the case until March 7, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.