Ponce Rodriguez v. Capri Laundromat Room Limited Liability Company
- Rearden
- 1:22-cv-10528
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ponce Rodriguez v. Capri Laundromat Room, Judge Rearden directed pro se defendant Angelo Campos de Araujo to update his address within 30 days.
The order directly affected defendant Angelo Campos de Araujo, who was appearing without a lawyer, by requiring him to update his address and providing an option for electronic service. It also concerned the court’s ability to serve documents in the case.
What happened
Ponce Rodriguez v. Capri Laundromat Room concerns the court’s efforts to contact defendant Angelo Campos de Araujo, who had filed a notice appearing without a lawyer and provided an address.
The court said an order mailed to that address was returned as undeliverable. It directed Campos de Araujo to update his address within 30 days and warned that failing to follow court orders may lead to sanctions, including a default judgment. It also explained that he could consent to receiving court documents electronically.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden issued the order on May 1, 2023. The order did not decide the lawsuit’s underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Ponce Rodriguez v. Capri Laundromat Room Limited Liability Company · No. 1:22-cv-10528
- Rearden
- May 1, 2023
Background
Angelo Campos de Araujo filed a notice of appearance without a lawyer on March 7, 2023, and identified a mailing address. The court later issued an order and the Clerk mailed it to that address. On April 25, 2023, the mailing was returned as undeliverable.
Court’s Action
The court stated that a litigant must promptly tell the court and the opposing party about an address change. It directed Campos de Araujo to update his address of record within 30 days of the order. The court warned that failure to comply with court orders may result in sanctions, including entry of a default judgment.
The court also explained that Campos de Araujo could consent to receive documents electronically at an email address by reviewing the instructions and submitting the required consent form. The Clerk was directed to mail him a copy of the order.
What the Order Decided
This was an administrative and procedural order about service of court documents and keeping an accurate address on the record. It did not resolve the claims in the lawsuit or determine the parties’ underlying rights.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.