Morales v. 94 Corner Cafe Corp.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-10935
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Morales v. 94 Corner Cafe: Judge Woods ordered Defendants to attend a conference and warned of default for noncompliance.
Mohinder Singh and 94 Corner Cafe Corp. were required to comply with the May 28 conference and representation requirements. Singh faced a possible default and judgment if he failed to attend, while the corporation faced a stated finding of default if it lacked licensed counsel.
What happened
In Morales v. 94 Corner Cafe Corp., the court held a required conference after previously warning that Mohinder Singh had to appear personally if he had not hired a lawyer. Plaintiff’s counsel and the court appeared, but neither Defendant nor any representative attended.
The court ordered another in-person conference for May 28, 2024. If Defendants’ lawyer had not formally appeared by then, Singh had to attend personally without a lawyer. The court warned that failing to follow its orders could lead to penalties, including a default judgment against Singh, and stated that 94 Corner Cafe Corp. could not participate without a licensed lawyer.
Judge Woods further ordered that 94 Corner Cafe Corp. would be found in default if it did not have a lawyer appear by May 28. The order did not decide the underlying claims, and the clerk was directed to mail a copy to Singh.
The detailed version
- Morales v. 94 Corner Cafe Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-10935
- Gregory Woods
- May 9, 2024
Background
The court had scheduled an in-person conference for May 9, 2024. In an earlier order, it directed Mohinder Singh to appear personally and litigate without a lawyer if Defendants had not retained counsel, and warned that his failure to attend could lead to a finding of default and a judgment against him. Plaintiff’s counsel later reported that he had been unable to contact Singh and asked the court to require Singh to provide personal contact information. The court denied that request without prejudice and reiterated that the May 9 conference would occur as scheduled.
At the May 9 conference, the court, its staff, and Plaintiff’s counsel appeared. Neither Defendant nor any representative for Defendants appeared.
Court’s Action
The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which permits a court to issue appropriate orders when a party fails to attend a scheduled conference or fails to follow a scheduling or other pretrial order. The court ordered the parties to attend an in-person conference on May 28, 2024, at 1:00 p.m.
If Defendants’ counsel had not entered a notice of appearance by May 28, Singh was required to appear personally and litigate without a lawyer. The court warned that failing to follow court orders, including failing to attend a court-ordered conference, could result in sanctions. It specifically warned that Singh’s failure to attend could lead to a finding of default and the entry of judgment against him.
The court also explained that 94 Corner Cafe Corp., as a corporation, could not proceed without a licensed lawyer. If counsel for the corporation had not entered a notice of appearance by May 28, the court stated that it would find 94 Corner Cafe Corp. in default. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Singh at the address listed in the order.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order addressed attendance, legal representation, and possible consequences for failing to comply with court orders. It did not decide the underlying claims between the parties.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.