Woods v. BD&S Service, Inc.
Order re: 13 Answers and Corrections to Complaint and MOTION to Dismiss filed by BD&S Service, Inc. The request for dismissal is denied. BD&S Services is ordered by 4/10/2012 to notify the Court of the name of the counsel it has retained to represent its interests in this action. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 3/20/2012. Copy mailed to BD&S Services c/o Al Brewton. (tgw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
B D & S SERVICE, INC.,
CIVIL ACTION 11-0711-WS-N
This matter comes before the Court on correspondence and a marked-up copy of the
Complaint filed by Al Brewton, President of BD&S Services, Inc. (See doc. 13.) In that
correspondence, Brewton requests that “the court dismiss this case based on false information
being provided by the plaintiff, and no wrong doing found in the investigation of the EEOC.”
Defendant’s pro se request for dismissal of the Complaint is denied.
The threshold problem with this filing is that it was not submitted by an attorney, and no
lawyer appears to be representing BD&S Services at this time. The law is crystal clear that a
corporation or other artificial entity cannot appear in federal court unless it is represented by
counsel. See, e.g., Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506
U.S. 194, 201-02, 113 S.Ct. 716, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part
of two centuries ... that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed
counsel.”); Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985) (“The rule is well
established that a corporation is an artificial entity that ... cannot appear pro se, and must be
represented by counsel.”); United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579, 581 (7th Cir. 2008) (“A
corporation is not permitted to litigate in a federal court unless it is represented by a lawyer
licensed to practice in that court.”); Udoinyion v. The Guardian Security, 2011 WL 3911087, *3
(11th Cir. Sept. 7, 2011) (“A corporation is an artificial entity that cannot appear pro se and must
be represented by counsel.”).
Simply put, BD&S Services cannot represent itself in this proceeding, nor can its
corporate officers, owners or employees file papers in this case on behalf of that entity unless
they are licensed attorneys. For this reason, it is imperative that BD&S Services retain counsel
immediately if it wishes to be heard or to defend against this action. BD&S Services is therefore
ordered, on or before April 10, 2012, to notify the Court in writing via notice of appearance of
the name, address, and telephone number of the counsel it has retained to represent its interests in
this action. Failure to comply with this Order in a timely manner may result in entry of
default or other sanctions against defendant BD&S Services upon motion by plaintiff.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to BD&S Services, Inc., c/o
Al Brewton, President, 220 East Claiborne Street, Monroeville, AL 36460.
DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2012.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?