Moallem v. Russo
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-11297
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Moallem v. Russo, Judge Carroni ruled that Russo’s filing represented only himself, not the company or unidentified defendants, and preserved the default-judgment deadline.
Bruce Moallem, Sebastian Russo, Disintegration Records LLC, and Does 1–10.
What happened
In Moallem v. Russo, Sebastian Russo filed an answer, crossclaims, and a counterclaim for himself, Disintegration Records LLC, and Does 1–10. Russo was representing himself without a lawyer.
The court explained that individuals may represent themselves, but corporations and partnerships must have an attorney. It therefore ruled that Russo’s filing was effective only for himself, not for Disintegration Records LLC or Does 1–10.
Judge Carroni directed the Clerk to strike the filing to the extent it purported to represent those defendants. The court also left Bruce Moallem’s February 23, 2024 deadline to seek an order requiring those defendants to explain why default judgment should not be entered, and said it would separately refer the dispute between Moallem and Russo to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.
The detailed version
- Moallem v. Russo · No. 1:23-cv-11297
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 30, 2024
Background
On January 26, 2024, Defendant Sebastian Russo filed an answer containing crossclaims and a counterclaim. The filing purported to be on behalf of Russo, Disintegration Records LLC, and Does 1–10. The opinion states that Russo was proceeding without a lawyer.
Court’s reasoning
The Court stated that individuals may represent themselves, but corporations and partnerships must be represented by an attorney. Based on that rule, Russo’s filing could operate only on his own behalf. It was not effective as to Disintegration Records LLC or Does 1–10.
Order
The Court ordered that Russo’s answer, crossclaims, and counterclaim were not effective as to Disintegration Records LLC and Does 1–10 and were only on behalf of Russo. The Clerk was directed to strike the answer and cross-complaint at Docket 12 to the extent they purported to have been filed for those defendants.
The Court also ordered that Plaintiff Bruce Moallem’s deadline to move for an order requiring Disintegration Records LLC and Does 1–10 to explain why default judgment should not be entered remained February 23, 2024. In addition, the Court stated that it would enter a separate referral order concerning the dispute between Moallem and Russo, referring that dispute to United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.