Summary
recognizing that courts "have generally treated pro se filings by a corporation as a nullity"
Summary of this case from Nicois Mafia Family Records, LLC v. Okla. Sec'y of StateOpinion
Case No. 08-CV-0661-CVE-FHM.
March 24, 2009
OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Answer of BDMP, LLC (Dkt. # 26). Plaintiffs ask the Court to strike the answer filed by BDMP, LLC (BDMP) because it was filed by a corporate officer of BDMP, rather than an attorney representing BDMP. Plaintiffs argue that BDMP is a limited liability company and must appear before this Court through a licensed attorney. BDMP has not responded to plaintiffs' motion.
In this case, BDMP filed an answer (Dkt. # 18) signed by "William S. Dalton," but the record gives no indication that Dalton is an attorney. Plaintiffs state that Dalton is the "principal member and registered agent of BDMP." Dkt. # 26, at 2. The docket sheet shows that BDMP is not currently represented by counsel. It is well-established that a corporation is not a natural person and may appear in federal court only if it is represented by counsel. Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) ("It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel."); Harrison v. Wahatoyas, LLC, 253 F.3d 552 (10th Cir. 2001) ("As a general matter, a corporation or other business entity can only appear in court through an attorney and not through a non-attorney corporate officer appearing pro se."). This Court has adopted a local rule providing that parties who are not natural persons may not appear pro se. LCvR 17.1. Court have generally treated pro se filings by a corporation as a nullity.See United States v. J.K. Wright, Inc., 2007 WL 4608724 (D. Me. Dec. 28, 2007); Frayler v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 118 F. Supp. 2d 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
The answer (Dkt. # 18) filed on behalf of BDMP was not filed by a licensed attorney and it should be stricken. BDMP is a limited liability company and it may appear before this Court only through a licensed attorney. The answer filed by Dalton is a legal nullity and, thus, BDMP has not entered an appearance in this case. The Court will grant BDMP an extension of time to obtain counsel and file an answer or other responsive pleading under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 signed by such counsel. BDMP is advised that failure to comply with this Opinion and Order may result in BDMP's default.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Answer of BDMP, LLC (Dkt. # 26) is granted and defendant BDMP, LLC's answer (Dkt. # 18) is stricken. Within twenty (20) days of entry of this Opinion and Order, defendant BDMP, LLC shall obtain counsel and file an answer or other responsive pleading signed by counsel.