Melwani v. Lipton et al

Filing 178

ORDER: Accordingly, Plaintiff Cantal Trade Ltd.'s claims are dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion (Dkt. No. 160). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 9/19/2022) Cantal Trade LTD terminated. (ks)

Case 1:17-cv-08308-PGG-SLC Document 178 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LOKESH MELWANI and CANTAL TRADE
LTD.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

ORDER
17 Civ. 8308 (PGG) (SLC)

HUNTER LIPTON, EAGLE POINT
FINANCIAL LLC, and MDF HOLDINGS
LLC,
Defendants.
PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.:
In this breach of contract action, Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff
Cantal Trade Ltd.’s claims for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (Dkt. No.
160) Cantal Trade Ltd. has not opposed the motion. 1
In a January 18, 2022 order, this Court warned that “Cantal Trade Ltd. cannot
appear in this lawsuit other than through counsel.” (Dkt. No. 158) No attorney has since
appeared on behalf of Cantal Trade Ltd.
A corporate entity cannot appear other than through counsel. See Lattanzio v.
COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[A] limited liability company . . . may appear in
federal court only through a licensed attorney.”); United States ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty,
540 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[A] layman may not represent a corporation even if the sole
shareholder.” (citations omitted)); see also Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s
Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202-03 (1993). Where, as here, a plaintiff corporation has been
repeatedly warned that its claims will be dismissed absent retention of counsel, and it has failed
1

In a February 10, 2022 letter, pro se Plaintiff Lokesh Melwani responded to the motion, asking
this Court “to not enter default judgment against Cantal [Trade Ltd.] at this stage of the
proceeding.” (Pltf. Ltr. (Dkt. No. 162))

Case 1:17-cv-08308-PGG-SLC Document 178 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 2

to appear through counsel, dismissal is appropriate. See, e.g., Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v.
Microflo, Ltd., No. 11-CV-523 (JMA) (SIL), 2017 WL 9512403, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 11, 2017),
report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 4119268 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2017) (dismissing
corporate plaintiff’s claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) where it had failed to appear through
counsel).
Accordingly, Plaintiff Cantal Trade Ltd.’s claims are dismissed for failure to
prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion (Dkt. No. 160).
Dated: New York, New York
September 19, 2022
SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Paul G. Gardephe
United States District Judge

2