Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : FOX SHIVER LLC, : : Plaintiff, : : 25-CV-3068 (JMF) -v- : : ORDER INDIVIDUALS et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: It has come to the Court’s attention that the Court’s prior Order (ECF No. 95) may not have been served on Defendants Ayse R. Civelek d/b/a RanasThreadsnTees (“RanasThreadsnTees”) and Shameem Aslam d/b/a StitchSpire (“StitchSpire”), as they are purporting to be proceeding without counsel. See ECF Nos. 89, 90.

In general, corporate entities may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel, see Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 2007), and where such an entity “repeatedly fails to appear by counsel, a default judgment may be entered against it,” Grace v. Bank Leumi Tr. Co. of N.Y., 443 F.3d 180, 192 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). That said, although “courts generally do not allow corporations, partnerships, associations, and other artificial entities to appear in court without an attorney,” courts have “allow[ed] sole proprietorships to proceed pro se because a sole proprietorship has no legal existence apart from its owner.” Scales v. Design Nortex, No. 23-CV-6442 (LTS), 2024 WL 21909, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). No later than September 29, 2025, Defendants Ayse R. Civelek d/b/a RanasThreadsnTees (“RanasThreadsnTees”) and Shameem Aslam d/b/a StitchSpire (“StitchSpire”) shall show cause in writing why they should be permitted to proceed without counsel in this action. If Defendants do not show cause by that date, the Court may strike their answers and deem them to be in default.

In light of the foregoing, the deadline for Defendant StitchSpire to respond to Plaintiff's motion for an award of fees and costs incurred in effecting service of process — which was set for September 11, 2025 — is hereby extended nunc pro tunc to October 17, 2025. Failure to respond by that date may result in Plaintiff’s motion being granted as unopposed.

The Clerk of Court is directed to (1) add Defendants Ayse R. Civelek d/b/a RanasThreadsnTees (“RanasThreadsnTees”) and Shameem Aslam d/b/a StitchSpire (“StitchSpire’’) as pro se parties to the docket and include their address information as listed in their answers, see ECF Nos. 89-90, and (2) mail a copy of this Order as well as the Order docketed at ECF No. 95 to those Defendants at those addresses.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2025 New York, New York JESSE RMAN nited States District Judge