From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City of Oshkosh v. L.S.C. Bible Camp

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Mar 11, 2004
Case No. 03-C-1147 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 11, 2004)

Opinion

Case No. 03-C-1147.

March 11, 2004


ORDER


The City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, filed this action in the Circuit Court for Winnebago County to declare certain real estate owned by the L.S.C. Bible Camp, Christian Liberty Academy, Mission of Jesus Christ, Almighty God, (Bible Camp), a nuisance and for an order directing the owners to repair the builidng or, in the alternative, have it razed. The United States is a party to the action by virtue of seven Internal Revenue Service tax liens that are attached to the property. Asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2410, the United States removed the action to federal court. The case is presently before me on several motions, including motions by both the City of Oshkosh and the United States to dismiss various counter-claims and cross-claims purportedly filed by the Bible Camp against them, and a motion for default judgment by the City which is based on the fact that the answer and other pleadings filed on behalf of the Bible Camp were filed by its trustee Donald Minniecheske, who is not licensed to practice law in this or any other state.

The defect the City relies on for its motion for judgment by default is an important one. "It has been the law . . . for the better part of two centuries that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel." Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (citing Osborn v. President of Bank of United States, 22 U.S. 738 (1824)). Although other parties may appear pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 1654, corporations may not; a corporation is a legal entity with an independent legal existence unto its own, separate from the interest of its president and founder. Strong Delivery Ministry Ass'n v. Bd. of Appeals of Cook County, 543 F.2d 32, 34 (7th Cir. 1976) (per curiam). The rule requiring artificial entities to appear before the federal courts only through licensed counsel extends to trusts. See Knoefler v. United Bank of Bismarck, 20 F.3d 347, 348 (8th Cir. 1994) ("A nonlawyer, such as these purported `trustee(s) pro se, has no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust, in a court of the United States"), citing C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir. 1987). It is also a rule with which Mr. Minniecheske has had personal experience. See Life Science Church v. Shawano County, 221 Wis.2d 331, 334, 585 N.W.2d 625 (Ct.App. 1998).

The City contends that the answer of the Bible Camp must be treated as a nullity and a default judgment should be entered in its favor immediately. However, the suggestion of this circuit is not to treat such pleadings as a nullity but rather as unsigned pleadings. See Kovilic Constr. Co. v. Missbrenner, 106 F.3d 768, 772 (7th Cir. 1997) (suggesting that the court might regard documents signed by person without authority to do so as equivalent of unsigned documents under Rule 11(a)). See Operating Eng'Rs Local 139 Health Benefit Fund v. Rawson Plumbing, 130 F. Supp.2d 1022, 1024 (E.D. Wis. 2001). Rule 11(a) requires that "[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party," Rule 11(a) also provides that "[a]n unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party." Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a).

Based on the foregoing, I am inclined to strike all pleadings filed by Mr. Minniecheske and allow the Bible Camp twenty days to retain counsel and file a proper response. There is no need for me to strike the answer, counter-claims and cross-claims filed on behalf of the Bible Camp, however, because they were never filed in federal court. The docket reflects that Mr. Minniecheske has filed documents in response to the pending motions and they shall be stricken. But he has apparently failed to file the answer, counter-claims and cross-claims that are the subject of the pending motions to dismiss. The motions to dismiss will therefore be denied as moot and the Bible Camp will be allowed twenty days to file a proper response.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the City's motion to dismiss counter-claim filed on behalf of Bible Camp (Docket #12) and the United States' motion to dismiss cross-claim filed on behalf of Bible Camp (Docket #28) are denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City's motion for default judgment (Docket #32) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pleadings filed on behalf of the Bible Camp by Donald Minniecheske (Docket #s 16, 17, 18, 19, 27, 29, 36) are hereby stricken from the record, and the Bible Camp shall file a proper response on or before April 1, 2004. In the event no lawful response is filed by the Bible Camp within the time allowed, the City may renew its motion for default judgment.


Summaries of

City of Oshkosh v. L.S.C. Bible Camp

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Mar 11, 2004
Case No. 03-C-1147 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 11, 2004)
Case details for

City of Oshkosh v. L.S.C. Bible Camp

Case Details

Full title:CITY OF OSHKOSH, Petitioner, v. L.S.C. BIBLE CAMP, CHRISTIAN LIBERTY…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

Date published: Mar 11, 2004

Citations

Case No. 03-C-1147 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 11, 2004)