Federal Election Commission v. LatPAC et al
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter a default against Defendants LatPAC and Askew pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 1/7/2022) (js) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 23 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Federal Election Commission,
1:21-cv-06095 (ALC) (SDA)
OPINION AND ORDER
LatPAC et al.,
STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge:
This is an action by Plaintiff Federal Election Commission (the “Commission”) against
Defendants, the registered political committee LatPAC and Chalin A. Askew (“Askew”), in his
official capacity as treasurer of LatPAC, alleging violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
(See Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 1.) This Order, which follows a January 4, 2022 telephone conference
in which only the Commission appeared, concerns defaults by LatPAC in failing to appear by
counsel and by Askew in failing to defend this action.
On July 15, 2021, the Complaint was filed in this action, consisting of 45 paragraphs. (See
Compl. ¶¶ 1-45.) On August 13, 2021, Askew executed waivers of service of the Summons and
Complaint in this action on behalf of LatPAC and himself. (See LatPAC Waiver, ECF No. 14; Askew
Waiver, ECF No. 15.) On November 2, 2021, Askew purported to file an Answer on behalf of
LatPAC and himself. 1 (See Answer, ECF No. 18.) However, the Answer that was filed does not
Askew appeared pro se in this action and consented to electronic service. (See Not. of Appearance, ECF
No. 16; Pro Se Consent, ECF No. 17.) As the ECF docket reflects, LatPAC never has appeared by counsel in
this action and Askew cannot appear pro se on behalf of LatPAC. See, e.g., Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d
Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 23 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 5
correspond to the Complaint. (Compare Compl. ¶¶ 1-45 with Answer ¶¶ 1-19.) For example, the
Answer only responds to 24 paragraphs of the 45 paragraphs of the Complaint. (Id.) On
November 4, 2021, this action was referred to me for general pretrial purposes. (See Order of
Ref., ECF No. 19.)
On November 5, 2021, an Order was entered scheduling a telephone conference for
November 12, 2021. (See 11/5/21 Order, ECF No. 20.) On November 12, 2021, the Commission
appeared for the telephone conference, but Askew did not appear and no one appeared on
behalf of LatPAC. (See 11/12/21 Order, ECF No. 21.) Following the conference, the Court entered
an Order which stated, in part: “LatPAC is advised that an artificial entity cannot appear pro se in
this Court.” (See id. ¶ 1 (citations omitted).) The Order set a deadline of December 15, 2021 for
LatPAC to appear by counsel. (See id.) The Order warned LatPAC that, “if LatPAC does not appear
by counsel, a default may be entered against it.” (See id.)
The November 12, 2021 Order also addressed the defective Answer that was filed, stating:
“[t]he purported Answer filed by Defendant Askew on November 2, 2021 is defective, as it does
not respond to the allegations in the Complaint.” (See 11/12/21 Order ¶ 2 (citation omitted).)
The Order set a deadline of December 15, 2021 for Askew to file a new responsive pleading. (See
id.) The Order also scheduled another telephone conference for January 4, 2022. (See id. ¶ 3.)
Finally, the November 12, 2021 Order “reminded [Askew] that he must comply with all Court
orders and failure to do so, including by failing to appear for future conferences, may result in
391, 393 (2d Cir. 1997) (“appearance pro se denotes (in law Latin) appearance for one’s self; so that a
person ordinarily may not appear pro se in the cause of another person or entity.”).
Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 23 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 5
the imposition of sanctions, up to and including a recommendation to the District Judge that a
default judgment be entered against him.” (See id. (emphasis in original).)
On January 4, 2022, the Commission appeared for the telephone conference, but once
again Askew did not appear and no one appeared on behalf of LatPAC. On January 6, 2022,
dispositive motions in this action were referred to me for a report and recommendation. (See
Am. Order of Ref., ECF No. 22.)
Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “When a party against whom
a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure
is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
“Although Rule 55(a) contemplates that entry of default is a ministerial step to be performed by
the clerk of court . . ., a district judge also possesses the inherent power to enter a default.” City
of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 128 (2d Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
Because entry of a default under Rule 55(a) is non-dispositive, a magistrate judge also may direct
the Clerk of Court to enter a default pursuant to the referral for general pretrial management.
See Scalia v. Mucino, No. 17-CV-00605 (EAW) (HBS), 2021 WL 222012, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 22,
2021) (directing Clerk of Court to enter default under Rule 55(a) as non-dispositive pretrial matter
and citing cases).
“[A]rtificial entities are not permitted to appear in federal court without counsel.” See In
Re: Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, No. 03-MDL-01570 (GBD) (FM), 2016 WL 1377129, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 3866576 (S.D.N.Y. July
13, 2016) (citing Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law
Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 23 Filed 01/07/22 Page 4 of 5
for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in federal courts only
through licensed counsel. As the courts have recognized, the rationale for that rule applies
equally to all artificial entities.”) (citations omitted)).
“Even where a defendant has filed an answer, ‘Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is the
basic procedure to be followed when there is a default in the course of litigation.’” Vicente v.
Ljubica Contractors LLC, No. 18-CV-0419 (VSB) (SLC), 2020 WL 2832808, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 1,
2020) (quoting Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d at 128).
A Default Should Be Entered Against LatPAC
LatPAC has failed to appear through counsel in this action by the deadline set by the
Court. Thus, a default should be entered against LatPac, pursuant to Rule 55(a). See Pareja v. 184
Food Corp., No. 18-CV-05887 (JPO) (SDA), 2021 WL 3109621, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2021), report
and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 3501229 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2021) (“It is well settled that
a corporate defendant’s failure to obtain counsel is failure to ‘otherwise defend’ under Rule
55(a).”); see also Carlone v. Lion & the Bull Films, Inc., 861 F. Supp. 2d 312, 318 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
(corporation may not appear pro se, but must retain counsel to avoid default).
A Default Should Be Entered Against Askew
Askew filed an Answer but that Answer did not properly respond to the Complaint. (See
11/12/21 Order (noting that purported Answer was defective because it did not respond to the
allegations in the Complaint).) Thereafter, Defendant Askew failed to appear for a telephone
conference on November 12, 2021; failed to file a new responsive pleading as directed by the
Court; and failed to appear for a second telephone conference on January 4, 2022, despite a
Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 23 Filed 01/07/22 Page 5 of 5
warning that failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions up to an including a
recommendation to the District Judge that a default judgment be entered against him. (See id.)
Accordingly, the Court finds that a default should be entered against Askew as he has failed to
“otherwise defend” this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter a default
against Defendants LatPAC and Askew pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). 2
New York, New York
January 7, 2022
STEWART D. AARON
United States Magistrate Judge
After the defaults have been entered, the Court shall set a briefing schedule for the Commission to file
a motion for a default judgment so that a recommendation can be made with respect to the relief that
the Commission seeks.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?