From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taco Bell, Corp. v. Brian P. Hakan Associates, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Nov 7, 2006
Case No. 05-2323-CM (D. Kan. Nov. 7, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 05-2323-CM.

November 7, 2006


ORDER


This matter comes before the court on the motion of Jessica S. Rutherford and James M. Kirkland for leave to withdraw as counsel for defendant, Brian P. Hakan Associates, Inc. ( doc. 38), and the motion of defendant for a thirty (30) day extension of the dispositive motion deadline and continuation of the pretrial conference (doc. 43). The court rules as follows.

Motion to Withdraw

Jessica S. Rutherford and James M. Kirkland move for leave to withdraw as counsel for defendant, Brian P. Hakan Associates, Inc. (doc. 38). Counsel represent that defendant has consented to the withdrawal and no timely opposition to the motion has been filed.

For cause shown, the court grants counsel leave to withdraw. However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1654, "[p]arties to federal litigation are authorized to be represented either `personally or by counsel.'" The courts have consistently construed this statute as barring corporations and partnerships from proceeding "pro se" and requiring that they be represented by counsel. Therefore, defendant will not be allowed to proceed in this case without counsel. Defendant is urged to promptly retain counsel as, most notably, there is a pending motion to compel filed by plaintiff, to which defendant's response is due by November 15, 2006. As to the other pending deadlines, the court, on its own motion, stays those deadlines for 30 days to allow defendant an opportunity to retain counsel. The pretrial conference is canceled until further order of the court. A telephone status conference is set for December 15, 2006, at 11:00 a.m., at which defendant must be represented by counsel. The court will initiate the call. Defendant is forewarned that the entry of appearance of new counsel will not result in this case being further delayed by resetting all discovery deadlines.

Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) (citations omitted).

Motion for Extension of Time

Due to the above-stated ruling, defendant's motion for extension of time (doc. 43) is granted in part, denied in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Copies of this order shall be served on all counsel of record and sent by regular and certified mail to Brian P. Hakan Associates, Inc., 11235 Mastin Street, Suite 201, Overland Park, Kansas 66210.


Summaries of

Taco Bell, Corp. v. Brian P. Hakan Associates, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Nov 7, 2006
Case No. 05-2323-CM (D. Kan. Nov. 7, 2006)
Case details for

Taco Bell, Corp. v. Brian P. Hakan Associates, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:TACO BELL, CORP., Plaintiff, v. BRIAN P. HAKAN ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Nov 7, 2006

Citations

Case No. 05-2323-CM (D. Kan. Nov. 7, 2006)