Ponce Rodriguez v. Capri Laundromat Room Limited Liability Company
- Rearden
- 1:22-cv-10528
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Ponce Rodriguez v. Capri Laundromat, Judge Rearden ordered the company to respond through counsel and allowed Campos De Araujo to amend his answer.
The corporate defendant must respond through a licensed attorney, and Angelo Campos De Araujo may amend his answer and must keep his address current. Arturo Ponce Rodriguez must serve specified orders and file proof of service.
What happened
In Ponce Rodriguez v. Capri Laundromat Room Limited Liability Company, the plaintiff sued the company and Angelo Campos De Araujo. The company had received the complaint but had not appeared through a licensed lawyer, while Campos De Araujo had filed an answer for himself and the company.
The court ordered the company to respond to the complaint through a lawyer by June 21, 2024, warning that failing to do so may support a default judgment. The court also allowed Campos De Araujo to file an amended answer by that date; if he did not, his existing answer would remain operative for him. The plaintiff was ordered to serve specified court orders at two addresses and file proof of service.
Judge Rearden issued this procedural order without deciding the lawsuit’s underlying claims. The court also reminded Campos De Araujo to keep his address current and encouraged him to use electronic service.
The detailed version
- Ponce Rodriguez v. Capri Laundromat Room Limited Liability Company · No. 1:22-cv-10528
- Rearden
- May 22, 2024
Background
Arturo Ponce Rodriguez filed this action against Capri Laundromat Room Limited Liability Company, doing business as Capri Laundry Room, and Angelo Campos De Araujo. The opinion states that the company was served on December 15, 2022, and that its response was due on January 5, 2023. Campos De Araujo was served on December 20, 2022, and the opinion states that his response was due on January 10, 2024.
Campos De Araujo, representing himself, requested more time to answer for himself and the company. He later filed an answer on his own behalf and on behalf of the company. In a March 2023 order, the court explained that a corporation must appear in federal court through a licensed attorney. It therefore treated the request for more time and the answer as invalid insofar as they were filed for the company. The court directed the company to obtain a lawyer and directed Campos De Araujo to seek permission to file an answer addressing only the claims against him.
The court’s March and May 2023 orders were returned as undeliverable. Campos De Araujo later provided residential and commercial addresses. On January 30, 2024, Ponce Rodriguez requested certificates of default against both defendants. The Clerk issued a certificate of default against the company on January 31, 2024.
Current Order
The court ordered the company to respond to the complaint through a licensed attorney by Friday, June 21, 2024. It stated that failure to do so may constitute grounds for entry of a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. The opinion does not state that the court entered a default judgment in this order.
The court granted Campos De Araujo leave to file an amended answer by Friday, June 21, 2024, with or without assistance from a lawyer. If he did not file an amended answer by that deadline, the court stated that his existing filing, ECF No. 13, would remain the operative answer as to him.
The court also encouraged Campos De Araujo to consent to electronic service and reminded him to promptly report any address change. By Friday, May 24, 2024, Ponce Rodriguez was ordered to serve both defendants at both addresses provided in Campos De Araujo’s letter with the March 2023 order, the May 2023 order, and this order. Ponce Rodriguez was required to file proof of service within two business days after service.
Classification and Effect
This is a procedural order concerning representation, service, pleadings, and possible default. It does not decide the merits of Ponce Rodriguez’s claims. The directives primarily affect the corporate defendant, which must appear through counsel, and Campos De Araujo, who may amend his answer and must keep his address current; they also impose service and filing duties on Ponce Rodriguez.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.