Opinion
No. CV07-6001104S
March 19, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE (#103)
FACTS
The matter presently before the court arises out of the alleged failure of the defendant, Photopros Studio, LLC dba Photopros Studio, to compensate the plaintiff, SNET Information Services, Inc., dba SBC Yellow Pages for advertising published in the plaintiff's yellow pages. On June 27, 2007, an appearance was filed by Glen Crocker, a non-attorney, on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff filed a motion to strike the appearance on July 10, 2007, on the basis that a corporate entity may not appear pro se. Mr. Crocker, on behalf of the defendant, objected, via his "Request Cancellation of Plaintiff's Motion to Strike" filed July 13, 2007, representing that he is the only member of the defendant and therefore the only individual who can respond.
No juris number is listed on the appearance.
The Motion to Strike was on the short calendar as a non-arguable matter on March 17, 2007.
DISCUSSION
"The motion to strike . . . replaced the demurrer in our practice. Its function, like that which the demurrer served, is to test the legal sufficiency of a pleading." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) R.K. Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381, 384, 650 A.2d 153 (1994). "The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Peter-Michael, Inc. v. Sea Shell Associates, 244 Conn. 279, 270, 709 A.2d 558 (1998).
"Whenever any party wishes to contest (1) the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint, counterclaim or cross-claim, or of any one or more counts thereof, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (2) the legal sufficiency of any prayer for relief in any such complaint, counterclaim or cross complaint, or (3) the legal sufficiency of any complaint, counterclaim or cross complaint, or any count thereof, because of the absence of any necessary party, or (4) the joining of two or more causes of action which cannot properly be united in one complaint, whether the same be stated in one or more counts, or (5) the legal sufficiency of any answer to any complaint, counterclaim or cross complaint, or any part of that answer including any special defense contained therein, that party may do so by filing a motion to strike the contested pleading or part thereof." Practice Book § 10-39.
"[T]he proper manner by which to challenge [an] improper appearance is to file a motion for default for failure to appear . . ." R.K. Donnelley Sons, Company dba v. Grey Castle Press, Inc., Superior Court, Judicial District of Litchfield, Docket No. 0059244 (June 18, 1992, Pickett, J.) (denying plaintiff's motion to strike individual pro se's improper appearance on behalf of defendant corporation); Emtec Engineering, Inc. v. Administrator, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford, Docket No. 90 024168 (February 21, 1991, Fuller, J.) [3 Conn. L. Rptr. 280] (granting defendant's motion to strike pro se appearance filed on behalf of plaintiff, a corporation, where prior judge had denied defendant's motion for default for failure to appear and stated that the proper motion was a motion to strike the appearance). See also Triton Associates v. Six New Corporation, 14 Conn.App. 172, 175 (1988) (holding that trial court properly defaulted the defendant for failure to appear, where a pro se appearance had been filed on behalf of the defendant, a corporation).
Nonetheless, trial courts have routinely entertained motions to strike improper appearances. E.G. Kuiken Brothers Co., Inc. v. Coastal Building, LLC, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford, Docket No. 04 0084114 (March 12, 2004, Bear, J.) (granting plaintiff's motion to strike non-lawyer's appearance on behalf of defendant limited liability company); Valiant Insurance Co. v. Nurse Network, LLC, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain, Docket No. 98 0578083 (September 25, 1998, Hennessey, J.) [22 Conn. L. Rptr. 685] (granting plaintiff's motion to strike non-lawyer's appearance on behalf of defendant limited liability company).
Here, no objection has been made to the use of a motion to strike as the vehicle to test the sufficiency of the appearance, and the court will entertain the motion.
The court recognizes that the motion is not a "motion to strike" in the true sense, but rather, a motion seeking to have the appearance stricken from the file, much as parties move to strike, for example, an improperly filed jury claim or trial list claim, rather than testing the legal sufficiency of a claim.
Generally, an individual who is not an attorney is prohibited from practicing law or appearing as an attorney-at-law for another. C.G.S. § 51-88(a)(1). An exception exists, however, allowing a person to practice law or plead in any court "in his own cause." C.G.S. § 51-88(d)(2). This exception allows a person to appear pro se to represent his or her own cause; it does not allow an individual to appear pro se on behalf of a corporation. Triton Associates v. Six New Corporation, supra; Morey v. Battle Hill Power Equip., Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Docket No. 04 4000652 (November 30, 2006, Brunetti, J.) [42 Conn. L. Rptr. 448] (holding that attempted appearance by non-attorney on behalf of a third-party defendant corporation resulted in waiver of corporation's right to contest personal jurisdiction due to insufficiency of process). Similarly, a general partner who is not an attorney may not appear pro se on behalf of a partnership. Expressway Associates II v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. of Connecticut, 34 Conn.App. 543, 551 (1994); Mark Schwartz dba GMH Realty v. AAAA Legal Services, P.C., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. 00 0597688 (November 15, 2000, Rubinow, J.) [28 Conn. L. Rptr. 608](granting defendant's motion to strike pro se appearance on behalf of plaintiff, a partnership.) The rationale for this rule has been applied to limited liability companies. See Kuiken Brothers, Co., Inc. v. Coastal Builders, LLC, supra; Valiant Ins. Co. Nurse Network, LLC, supra (striking the non-attorney's appearance for the LLC where there was a second owner of the LLC, because only one of the two parties in interest was before the court; the court noted that it would have been proper if both of the two owners had filed separate pro se appearances).
In the present matter, Mr. Crocker indicates in his objection that he is the sole member of the LLC. If an LLC is comprised of a single member who is before the court, all interested parties are before the court. Chapdelaine v. Vinagro, Superior Court, judicial district of Windham at Putnam, Docket No. 07 5001139 (August 30, 2007, Martin, J.) [44 Conn. L. Rptr. 123] (addressing standing issue). In the situation where the entity is comprised of only one person, and that person seeks to file an appearance in court, he or she would not be prohibited from pleading "in his own cause." This matter is therefore set down for a hearing on April 28, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. on the issue of whether Mr. Crocker is in fact the only member of the LLC, in which case his appearance is proper.