Hernandez v. Silly Farm Supplies, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-02422
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hernandez v. Silly Farm Supplies, Inc., Judge Torres ordered the corporation to retain counsel and file counsel’s appearance by August 28, 2023.
Silly Farm Supplies, Inc. must retain counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance by August 28, 2023. Janelys Hernandez must serve the two orders on the defendant and file proof of service by August 2, 2023.
What happened
In Hernandez v. Silly Farm Supplies, Inc., the court had previously ordered the defendant to retain a lawyer and file a notice identifying that lawyer by July 24, 2023. The defendant had not told the court whether it complied.
The court ordered the defendant to retain counsel and have that lawyer file a notice of appearance by August 28, 2023. The court reminded the defendant that corporations and other artificial entities cannot represent themselves. The plaintiff must serve this order and the earlier order on the defendant and file proof of service by August 2, 2023.
Judge Analisa Torres issued the order on July 26, 2023.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Silly Farm Supplies, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02422
- Analisa Torres
- July 26, 2023
Background
On June 23, 2023, the court ordered Silly Farm Supplies, Inc. to retain counsel and directed that counsel to file a notice of appearance by July 24, 2023. The opinion states that the defendant had not indicated whether it had done so by that deadline.
Ruling
The court ordered Silly Farm Supplies, Inc. to retain counsel and required that counsel to file a notice of appearance by August 28, 2023. The court reminded the defendant that corporations and other artificial entities cannot proceed without a lawyer representing them.
The court also directed Janelys Hernandez to serve a copy of this order and the June 23 order on the defendant. She must file proof of service on the docket by August 2, 2023.
Effect
This order addresses the defendant’s representation and service requirements. It does not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.