UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------X 

Federal Election Commission,

Plaintiff 21 CIV. 6095 (ALC) (SDA) 

-against- DEFAULT

LatPAC et al.,

Defendants 

-----------------------------------------------------------X 

I, RUBY J. KRAJICK, Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District 

of New York, do hereby certify that this action was commenced on July 15, 2021 with the filing 

of a summons and complaint, a copy of the summons and complaint was served on defendant(s) 

Chalin M. Askew and LatPAC, on August 13, 2021, Askew executed waivers of service of the 

Summons and Complaint in this action on behalf of LatPAC and himself, and waiver of service 

was therefore filed on August 17, 2021, Doc. #(s) 14/15. On November 2, 2021, Askew 

purported to file an Answer on behalf of LatPAC and himself. (See Answer, ECF No. 18.) 

However, the Answer that was filed does not correspond to the Complaint. (Compare Compl. 

¶¶ 1-45 with Answer ¶¶ 1-19.) 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 

Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 24 Filed 01/12/22 Page 1 of 3
2 

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 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. LatPAC has failed to appear through 

counsel in this action by the deadline set by the Court. Thus, a default should be entered gainst 

LatPac, pursuant to Rule 55(a). 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 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). I further certify that the docket entries indicate that the Defendant Askew 

failed to appear for a telephone conference on November 12, 2021; failed to file a new 

Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 24 Filed 01/12/22 Page 2 of 3
3

responsive pleading as directed by the Court; and failed to appear for a second telephone

conference on January 4, 2022, defendant Askew has failed to “otherwise defend” this action. 

LatPAC has failed to appear through counsel in this action by the deadline set by the Court. 

The default of the defendants are hereby noted.

Dated: New York, New York

 January 12, 2022 RUBY J. KRAJICK

 _________________________

 Clerk of Court

 BY:

 _________________________

 Deputy Clerk

Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 24 Filed 01/12/22 Page 3 of 3