District Court, S.D. New York, 2025

Luzshara Colas v. Influential, Inc.

Luzshara Colas v. Influential, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York · Decided October 15, 2025
Luzshara Colas v. Influential, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LUZSHARA COLAS, Plaintiff, 25-CV-8197 (LTS) -against- ORDER DIRECTING ORIGINAL SIGNATURE INFLUENTIAL, INC., Defendant.

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Luzshara Colas submitted the complaint in this action using the court’s procedures for email filing by pro se litigants. Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name – or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.”

See also Local Civil Rule 11.1(a). The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 11(a) to require “as it did in John Hancock’s day, a name handwritten (or a mark handplaced).” Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 764 (2001). Although it appears that Plaintiff intends to bring this action pro se, she did not sign the complaint. The complaint instead includes a blank signature block for Randy A. Hernandez, Esq., of the Law Offices of Randy A. Hernandez, PLLC. (See ECF 1, at 11.)

Plaintiff is directed to submit a revised signature page with her signature to the Court within 30 days of the date of this order. If Plaintiff is represented by counsel in this action, her attorney must file a signed copy of the complaint and make a notice of appearance within 30 days of the date of this order.

No summons shall issue at this time. If Plaintiff complies with this order, the case shall be processed in accordance with the procedures of the Clerk’s Office. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2025 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.