Filed: May 18, 2018
Latest Update: May 18, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER ARTHUR D. SPATT , District Judge . On May 17, 2018, the pro se Defendant Jing Ding ("Ding") attempted to file an answer on behalf of the corporate Defendant Oogie Art Long Island Inc. ("Oogie"). The Court cannot accept Ding's answer on behalf of Oogie. A corporate defendant may only be represented by counsel, and therefore only counsel may speak on a corporate defendant's behalf. See Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194 , 201-02, 113 S.Ct. 716,
Summary: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER ARTHUR D. SPATT , District Judge . On May 17, 2018, the pro se Defendant Jing Ding ("Ding") attempted to file an answer on behalf of the corporate Defendant Oogie Art Long Island Inc. ("Oogie"). The Court cannot accept Ding's answer on behalf of Oogie. A corporate defendant may only be represented by counsel, and therefore only counsel may speak on a corporate defendant's behalf. See Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194 , 201-02, 113 S.Ct. 716, ..
More
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER
ARTHUR D. SPATT, District Judge.
On May 17, 2018, the pro se Defendant Jing Ding ("Ding") attempted to file an answer on behalf of the corporate Defendant Oogie Art Long Island Inc. ("Oogie").
The Court cannot accept Ding's answer on behalf of Oogie. A corporate defendant may only be represented by counsel, and therefore only counsel may speak on a corporate defendant's behalf. See Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721, 121 S.Ct. 656 (1993) ("It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel (internal citations omitted)); Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 722 F.2d 20, 22 (2d Cir. 1983) ("Since, of necessity, a natural person must represent the corporation in court, we have insisted that that person be an attorney licensed to practice law before our courts." (internal citations omitted)).
Therefore, the corporate Defendant's answer is not being docketed as an answer.
Additionally, the Court notes that if Ding is unable to secure counsel for Oogie, the corporate defendant will be held in default, and judgment may be entered against it.
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Defendant.
It is SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Answer
ASHCAN STUDIO OF ART INC. 18-cv-2079
Plaintiff
v.
OODIE ART LONG ISLAND INC.
Defendant
OODIE ART LONG ISLAND INC. is in the process of dissolution currently.
cc. Plaintiff.
