CA Organizasyon Matbaacilik Turizm Reklam Gida Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. JPMorgan Chase…
CA Organizasyon Matbaacilik Turizm Reklam Gida Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-06717
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In CA Organizasyon v. JPMorgan Chase, Judge Woods warned that the corporate plaintiff must obtain counsel or face dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The corporate plaintiff, CA Organizasyon Matbaacilik Turizm Reklam Gida Tic. Ltd. Sti., and its ability to continue the federal case without licensed counsel.
What happened
In CA Organizasyon Matbaacilik Turizm Reklam Gida Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the attorney who filed the complaint said he did not currently represent the plaintiff, and the plaintiff had no other lawyer.
The court explained that a corporation cannot represent itself in federal court and must appear through a licensed attorney.
Judge Gregory H. Woods said that unless the plaintiff’s lawyer filed a notice of appearance by September 12, 2023, the court would understand that the plaintiff chose to discontinue the case and expected to dismiss it for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- CA Organizasyon Matbaacilik Turizm Reklam Gida Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. JPMorgan Chase… · No. 1:23-cv-06717
- Gregory Woods
- Sept. 8, 2023
Background
During a telephone conference on September 8, 2023, Robert Shapiro, the attorney who filed the complaint for the plaintiff in New York Supreme Court, stated that he did not currently represent the plaintiff in this federal action. He also stated that the plaintiff was not represented by any other counsel.
Court’s Analysis
The court noted that the plaintiff is a corporation. Citing Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, the court explained that a corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel and may not proceed without a lawyer.
Action Taken
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it stated that if counsel for the plaintiff did not file a notice of appearance by September 12, 2023, the court would understand that the plaintiff had chosen to discontinue the litigation and expected to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.