Opinion
SA-24-CV-00488-FB
07-23-2024
BRONCBUSTER LLC, Plaintiff, v. BRONCOMONDO, CHANGZHOU DESAI VEHICLE PARTS CO., LTD., XOMZEMA, Defendants.
TO THE HONORABLE FRED BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This Report and Recommendation concerns the above-styled cause of action. All pretrial matters in this case have been referred to the undersigned for disposition pursuant to Western District of Texas Local Rule CV-72 and Appendix C. The undersigned has authority to enter this recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that this action be dismissed for want of prosecution.
I. Background and Analysis
Plaintiff BroncBuster LLC filed this case on May 14, 2024, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff is a limited liability company, not an individual. Limited liability companies are not permitted to represent themselves without licensed counsel in federal court. See Memon v. Allied Domecq QSR, 385 F.3d 871, 873 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Although 28 U.S.C. § 1654 authorizes individuals to appear in federal courts pro se, the statute is silent regarding corporations. The lack of authorization in § 1654 has been interpreted as barring corporations from appearing in federal court without an attorney.”); Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Because both a partnership and a corporation must appear through licensed counsel, and because a limited liability company is a hybrid of the partnership and corporate forms, . . . a limited liability company also may appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney.”) (internal citations omitted). Due to concerns about Plaintiff's lack of counsel, the Court issued an order on May 22, 2024, directing Plaintiff to secure an attorney and to have the attorney enter an appearance on its behalf by June 21, 2024, or file an advisory by that date updating the Court on the efforts to find an attorney. This order warned Plaintiff that a failure to comply with the deadline imposed by the Court could result in a dismissal of this case for want of prosecution and failure to follow a Court order.
The deadline imposed by the Court expired over one month ago, and Plaintiff has not filed anything with the Court and no attorney has entered an appearance on Plaintiff's behalf. A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any order of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.1988) (per curiam); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The undersigned will therefore recommend dismissal of this case for want of prosecution and failure to follow a court order.
II. Conclusion and Recommendation
Having considered the record in this case and governing law, the undersigned recommends that this case be DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.
III. Instructions for Service and Notice of Right to Object/Appeal
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of this report and recommendation on all parties by either (1) electronic transmittal to all parties represented by attorneys registered as a “filing user” with the clerk of court, or (2) by mailing a copy to those not registered by certified mail, return receipt requested. Written objections to this report and recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of same, unless this time period is modified by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The party shall file the objections with the Clerk of Court and serve the objections on all other parties. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendations to which objections are being made and the basis for such objections; the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the district court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985); Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2000). Additionally, failure to file timely written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report and recommendation shall bar the aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the un-objected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).