Ortiz Gatica v. Maharaja Palace Restaurant Corp
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:23-cv-03717
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ortiz Gatica v. Maharaja Palace Restaurant, Judge Moses accepted Mohammed Bashar’s answer but ordered the corporation to obtain counsel or risk default judgment.
Mohammed Bashar and Maharaja Palace Restaurant Corp.; Bashar’s answer was accepted for himself, while the corporation was required to obtain licensed counsel.
What happened
Ortiz Gatica v. Maharaja Palace Restaurant Corp. concerns an answer filed for Mohammed Bashar and Maharaja Palace Restaurant Corp. The court said Bashar was representing himself.
The court accepted the answer for Bashar but ruled that he could not represent the corporation. It ordered Maharaja Palace to appear and answer through a licensed lawyer by July 5, 2023, warning that default judgment may be entered if it failed to do so.
This order addressed pretrial management and representation, not the underlying claims. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses also provided information about a free legal clinic and electronic service for Bashar.
The detailed version
- Ortiz Gatica v. Maharaja Palace Restaurant Corp · No. 1:23-cv-03717
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 5, 2023
Background
Pedro Ortiz Gatica and Diego Lopez Morales brought this action against Maharaja Palace Restaurant Corp. (doing business as Maharaja Palace) and Mohammed Bashar. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement.
The court received a document titled “Answer,” filed on May 30, 2023, apparently for both Bashar and the corporation. The order states that Bashar was representing himself.
Ruling
The court accepted the answer on behalf of Bashar. It ruled that Bashar could not appear, sign pleadings, or otherwise defend the corporation because a corporation must appear through licensed counsel. The court ordered Maharaja Palace to appear and answer the complaint through counsel no later than July 5, 2023. The order stated that a default judgment may be entered against the corporation if it failed to do so.
The order also advised Bashar about the New York Legal Assistance Group Clinic for Pro Se Litigants, a private free legal clinic, and explained how a self-represented party could file documents and consent to electronic service.
Effect of the Order
This was a procedural order concerning representation and pretrial administration. It did not decide the parties’ underlying claims. Judge Barbara Moses signed the order on June 5, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.