Carey v. Indian Rock Corp.

6 Citing cases

  1. Cumberland Cnty. Sheriff's Office v. Me. Ammo Co.

    SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-19-327 (Me. Super. Feb. 26, 2020)

    (Pl.s' Ex. B.) Regardless of whether MAC has five or fewer shareholders, the Law Court has explained that "[a] counterclaim is a separate claim for relief, and thus a corporation must retain counsel in order to assert a counterclaim."Carey v. Indian Rock Corp., 2005 ME 6, ¶ 3, 863 A.2d 289. Without a licensed attorney to represent MAC, the Counterclaim presently before the Court is null.See Haynes v. Jackson, 2000 ME 11, ¶ 15, 744 A.2d 1050.

  2. United States v. All Articles of Drug Located at Global Biotechnologies, Inc.

    2:12-cv-00169-JAW (D. Me. Aug. 2, 2012)

    For the purposes of defending a civil action filed against a corporation, an officer of the corporation if the corporation is organized in this State and has 5 or fewer shareholders.4 M.R.S.A. § 807(3)(J); Carey v. Indian Rock Corp., 2005 ME 6, ¶ 2, 863 A.2d 289, 290 (acknowledging the § 807(3)(J) exception to the general prohibition against non-attorneys representing corporations).Whether in a diversity action federal or state law controls on this issue remains to be seen. Before addressing this question, the Court will require the Boyles to demonstrate that they fit under the Maine exception. If they do not, the Court will strike the Answer as to Coffee Couple, LLC; if they do, the Court will address in due course other issues, including the applicability of federal or state law, the impact of the purported Answer on the entry of default, and other matters.

  3. Dineen v. Port City Chrysler-Dodge, Inc.

    SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-15-50 (Me. Super. Apr. 26, 2016)

    As a result, without a licensed attorney to represent Patrick Bus Leasing Corp.'s interest, the complaint and filings presently before the court are a nullity. Land Mgmt., Inc. v. Dep't of Envtl Prot., 368 A.2d 602, 604 (Me. 1977) (affirming dismissal of complaint on the basis that notwithstanding authorization from the corporation, plaintiff was not authorized to practice law and the complaint was therefore a nullity); see also Carey v. Indian Rock Corp., 2005 ME 6, ¶ 3, 863 A.2d 289. The complaint will therefore be dismissed.

  4. Bennett v. St. Paul Fire

    Civil No. 04-cv-212-GNZ, NH Civil No. 04-ds-401-PB (D. Me. May. 12, 2006)

    The Maine Supreme Judicial Court recently held that a corporate officer's defense of a corporation in a civil action pursuant to 4 M.R.S.A. § 807(1) may not include the filing of a counterclaim on behalf of the corporation. Carey v. Indian Rock Corp., 863 A.2d 289, 290 (Me. 2005). The court reasoned that "[a] counterclaim is a separate claim for relief, and thus a corporation must retain counsel in order to assert a counterclaim."

  5. Bennett v. St. Paul Fire Marine Insurance Co.

    ME Civil No. 04-cv-212-GNZ, NH Civil No. 04-ds-401-PB, Opinion No. 2006 DNH 058 (D. Me. May. 12, 2006)

    The Maine Supreme Judicial Court recently held that a corporate officer's defense of a corporation in a civil action pursuant to 4 M.R.S.A. § 807(1) may not include the filing of a counterclaim on behalf of the corporation. Carey v. Indian Rock Corp., 863 A.2d 289, 290 (Me. 2005). The court reasoned that "[a] counterclaim is a separate claim for relief, and thus a corporation must retain counsel in order to assert a counterclaim."

  6. Sablock v. Modern Structures Painting

    No. CV-22-306 (Me. Super. Dec. 14, 2022)

    By filing a counterclaim, MSP is bringing a separate claim of relief and must retain counsel. Careyv.Indian Rock Corp., 2005 ME 6, ⁋ 3 (Me. 2005). Without counsel, the counterclaim will be dismissed.