Opinion
1:23-cv-00159-JLT-SAB
04-24-2023
TANIKA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, et al. Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE.
(DOCS. 10)
The Court recently adopted the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 9) In doing so, the Court allowed Ms. Williams 14 days to show why the actions should not be dismissed with prejudice because it appeared that she was not a proper plaintiff in this case. The Court observed that, Ms. Williams “provides screenshots showing the loan approval was given to New Royal Publications and Services not to her.” Id. at 2. In addition, the Court noted, “the SBA provides documentation showing that the loan at issue was granted to The New Royal Publications LLC, not to Ms. Williams.” Id. The Court advised Ms. Williams she cannot represent New Royal because it must proceed through a non-attorney. Id. Consequently, the Court ordered Ms. Willams to show cause why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice. Id. at 3.
In her response, Ms. Williams fails to substantively address the Court's concern and focuses on the alleged harm. She does not disclaim that New Royal is a corporation. Even still, she provides documents that she represented the entity to be a “sole proprietorship” to the SBA. (Doc. 10 at 4-11) However, she also admits that the SBA monies were loaned and/or granted to “New Royal Publications and Services” (Doc. 6 at 4) and ‘The New Royal Publication LLC” (Doc. 10 at 28). As noted previously, this company is a limited liability corporation. Because Ms. Williams does not provide any evidence to dispute this, she is not a proper plaintiff in this action.
The corporation must be represented by a lawyer. It cannot represent itself and it cannot be represented by an individual-even though Ms. Williams is the company's founder and only employee. A couple of consequences of choosing to organize the company as a corporation are the ones she faces now-that the corporation must retain an attorney to litigate and that the legal harms the corporation suffers belong to the entity and not to Williams. Thus, having received the benefits that the limited liability corporate structure provides, Ms. Williams cannot avoid the detriments. Thus, the Court ORDERS that the action is DISMISSED with PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.