Opinion
C. A. 4:23-cv-05067-JD-KDW
04-29-2024
Kristen Weber, Plaintiff, v. Sustainable Lighting Solutions LLC, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAYMANI D. WEST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge.
In a February 23, 2024 Order, United States District Judge Joseph Dawson granted the motion of prior counsel for Defendant Sustainable Lighting Solutions LLC (“Defendant” or “SELSCO”) to be relieved as Defendant's counsel. ECF No. 13. As counsel has been relieved, SELSCO is now proceeding without representation, or “pro se.” As explained by Judge Dawson, as an LLC SELSCO may not proceed without counsel. ECF No. 13 (citing several cases, including First Hartford Corp. Pension Plan and Trust v. United States, 194 F.3d 1279, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
In the February 23, 2024 Order, Judge Dawson advised SELSCO that it “must obtain counsel and counsel must file a Notice of Appearance in this Court no later than March 23, 2024. Failure to obtain counsel by March 23, 2024, may result in sanctions and/or dismissal of this action.” ECF No. 13. See also Local Civ. R. 83.I.07 (D.S.C.). Failure to comply with court rules could have serious consequences including, but not limited to, striking a defense, striking a pleading, and/or holding the party in default. Defendant has not had replacement counsel appear on its behalf, nor has it otherwise communicated with the court regarding this case.
In a March 28, 2024 Order the court issued a Final Notice of the deadline for SELSCO to obtain counsel. ECF No. 17. SELSCO was again advised that if counsel did not appear for it within 30 days it could face “serious consequences, including but not limited to, striking a defense, striking a pleading, and/or holding the party in default.” ECF No. 17 at 2. The extended deadline for obtaining counsel passed, and counsel has not appeared nor has SELSCO communicated further with the court.
As new counsel has not appeared on behalf of SELSCO, it is recommended that its answer (ECF No. 5) be stricken and default be entered against SELSCO. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a).
If default is entered the court could then consider any appropriate motions made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55.
The Clerk of Court is to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation on SELSCO, sending it by regular and certified mail to the last available address of record.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”