Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 15, 2023

Jones v. Plenty Mercantile, LLC

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:23-cv-03881
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Jones v. Plenty Mercantile, Judge Ramos granted an adjournment so the company could retain counsel before the initial pretrial conference.

Who this affects

Plenty Mercantile, LLC must retain counsel and enter an appearance to avoid possible adverse consequences; the initial pretrial conference was postponed.

What happened

In Jones v. Plenty Mercantile, LLC, the plaintiff’s lawyer asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference because the lawyer had been unable to communicate with the defendant. The defendant had filed an answer through a company representative rather than a lawyer.

The plaintiff requested a 45-day postponement and proposed October 2, 2023, as the new conference date. The court instead rescheduled the initial pretrial conference for October 24, 2023, at 10:30 a.m., giving the defendant more time to retain a lawyer.

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the request for an adjournment and directed the plaintiff’s lawyer to provide the defendant with a copy of the order. The court warned that a company may not appear without a lawyer in federal court and that failing to retain counsel and formally appear could lead to adverse consequences, including entry of default.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Jones v. Plenty Mercantile, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-03881
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Aug. 15, 2023

Background

The initial pretrial conference was scheduled for August 17, 2023. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a letter-motion stating that counsel had been unsuccessful in communicating with the defendant. The defendant had filed an answer through a representative of the company rather than through an attorney.

Request

Plaintiff’s counsel asked the court for a 45-day adjournment, or postponement, so the defendant could properly appear through counsel. Counsel proposed October 2, 2023, or another date convenient for the court, and stated that this was the first request for relief.

Court’s ruling

The court granted the request for an adjournment. It rescheduled the initial pretrial conference for October 24, 2023, at 10:30 a.m., to allow the defendant additional time to retain counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel was directed to provide the defendant with a copy of the court’s order.

The court also advised that a corporation may not appear without a lawyer in federal court. It warned that the defendant’s failure to retain counsel and enter an appearance could result in adverse consequences, including entry of default, a procedural consequence that can follow when a party fails to defend the case. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.