Opinion
22-1057-DDC-BGS
05-15-2024
ELK ENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC Plaintiff, v. LIPPELMANN PARTNERS LLC, et al., Defendants.
NOTICE AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
Brooks G. Severson, United states Magistrate Judge
NOW BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion to Withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Elk Energy Holdings, LLC filed by William R. Griffin, Samantha M. H. Woods, and Marisol Garcia of Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace and Bauer, L.L.P. (Doc. 86.) Pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 83.5.5(a), the motion sets forth the reasons for the withdrawal. The motion also establishes that the withdrawing attorneys provided Plaintiff with: (i) an admonition that Plaintiff is personally responsible for compliance with all Orders of the Court and relevant time limitations; and (ii) the dates of any pending trial, hearings, conferences, and deadlines. (Doc. 86-1.) The motion includes the current mailing address and telephone number for Plaintiff as:
Elk Energy Holdings, LLC 10500 E. Berkeley Square Parkway, Suite 220 Wichita, KS 67206 Telephone: (316) 613-1395(Doc. 86.)
The affidavit attached to the motion establishes that counsel served the Notice of Intent to Withdraw on Elk Energy by personal service at the above address on April 29, 2024. (Doc. 86-2.) A subsequently filed affidavit from counsel indicates that on April 30, 2024, the Motion to Withdraw (with exhibits) was sent to Elk Energy by electronic mail as well as by certified mail, although the certified mail was returned as undelivered. (Doc. 87.)
The Court notes that the affidavit contains a clerical error indicating counsel's client Elk Energy as the “Defendant” in this case, when Elk Energy is in fact the Plaintiff. The affidavit is sufficient, however, as it indicates the notice of intent was served on Elk Energy at the above address.
This affidavit also incorrectly identifies Elk Energy as the “Defendant.” (Doc. 87.)
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's counsel's Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 86.) Plaintiff Elk Energy Holdings, LLC is now proceeding pro se and is personally responsible for complying with all Orders of the Cand time limitations established by the rules of procedure or by Court Order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail this Order to pro se Plaintiff and update the docket accordingly to include this address:
Elk Energy Holdings, LLC10500 E. Berkeley Square Parkway, Suite 220
Wichita, KS 67206
Telephone: (316) 613-1395
Limited liability companies, like other corporate entities, may not proceed pro se and may not be represented by a non-attorney corporate officer. See American Contractors Indem. v. Boeding, 490 F. App'x. 141, 145 (10th Cir. 2012) (appellant “is not an attorney . . . and may not represent [a limited liability company] on appeal”); Roscoe v. United States, 134 Fed.Appx. 226, 227 (10th Cir. 2005) (dismissing the limited liability company as a pro se plaintiff); Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing cases); Eberth v. Corey Galyean Trucking, LLC, No. 12-2289, 2013 WL 5255636, at *3 (D. Kan. Sept. 17, 2013) (holding that non-attorney individual could not represent a limited liability company). Thus, by June 14, 2024, new counsel must enter an appearance for Elk Energy Holdings, LLC.
IT IS SO ORDERED.