Opinion
Civil No. CV 00-1677-AS
August 21, 2001
Richard Baroway, Garvey, Schubert Barer, Portland, OR, R. Eric Gaum, Alexander D. Bommarito, Mark A. Watkins, Oldham Oldham Co., L.P.A., Akron, Ohio, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
William Hammond, Beaverton, OR, Pro Se Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 4, 2001, Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas granted plaintiff's motion for default against defendant Toughguard Enterprises, LLC (doc. #20), and referred plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Toughguard Enterprises, LLC (doc. #21) to this court. On June 7, 2001, this court granted plaintiff's application for an accounting, and ordered defendant Toughguard Enterprises, LLC to deliver such accounting within ten days. On June 25, 2001, defendant Hammond moved for stay of execution of the judgment (doc. #31).
DEFENDANT HAMMOND'S MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
Defendant Hammond moves to stay the execution of enforcement of the judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) and 62(b). Defendant Hammond claims he is entitled to Rule 60(b)(6) relief because plaintiff has failed to prove its case, and has prohibited defendant Hammond from running his business. Rules 60(b) and 62(b) authorize a court to relieve a party from a judgment for any justifiable reason, including staying the execution of enforcement of the judgment "pending the disposition . . . of a motion for relief from a judgment or order." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), 62(b).
Although defendant Hammond claims he is seeking relief for himself, the relief he seeks is on behalf of his business. Because defendant is not an attorney, he cannot represent his business entities. Limited liability companies are required to be represented by an attorney, and all written submissions must be in the name of that attorney. Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit 11 Men's Advisory Couns., 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993). Accordingly, defendant Hammond's motion (doc. #31) is denied because it is improperly filed by a non-attorney.
DEFENDANT HAMMOND'S MOTION TO DISMISS
On August 16, 2001, Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas also referred a Findings and Recommendation (doc. # 35) to this court in which the Magistrate Judge recommended denying defendant Hammond's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Add an Indispensable Party (doc. # 17). No objections to this Findings and Recommendation were filed. The matter is now before this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation of the Magistrate. Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974). No clear error appears on the face of the record, and I adopt the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Hammond's Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment or Alternatively for Reconsideration (doc. # 31) and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Add an Indispensable Party (doc. # 17) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.