PNKT LLC v. Contemporary Women's Care et al

Filing 12

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with this Court's Orders. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to terminate this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED discharging the Court's Order to Show Cause issued to Defendants on June 28, 2013. (Doc. 9 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 7/3/13. (LAD)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 PNKT LLC, dba Fast Service Billing, an) ) Arizona limited liability company, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Contemporary Women’s Care, an Arizona) Professional Limited Liability Company) ) and Dr. Ali Baradaran, ) ) Defendants. ) No. CV-13-1045-PHX-LOA ORDER 15 This case arises on the Court’s review of the docket. 16 Pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on May 22, 2013. (Doc. 1) Plaintiff Long 17 Nguyen and Defendants Contemporary Women’s Care and Dr. Ali Baradaran consented in 18 writing to jurisdiction before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Docs. 5, 10) 19 Mr. Nguyen purports to represent Plaintiff PNKT LLC, dba Fast Service Billing, alleged in 20 the Complaint as an Arizona limited liability company. (Doc. 1 at 1) Mr. Nguyen is neither 21 identified as a lawyer on the State Bar of Arizona’s website1 nor admitted as a lawyer 22 authorized to practice law in the District of Arizona. 23 On June 14, 2013, the Court issued an order, doc. 8, to Plaintiff, explaining that only 24 licensed attorneys may represent corporations, limited liability companies, and other 25 business entities in federal court. See DLC Dermacare, LLC v. Castillo, 2012 WL 5464962, 26 at *3 (D. Ariz. Nov. 8, 2012) (citing, inter alia, Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II, 27 28 1 See (last viewed on June 25, 2013 ). 1 Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); Lotanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 2 140 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that LLC could appear in federal court only through licensed 3 attorney); D. Beam Ltd. Partnership v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th 4 Cir. 2004) (“It is a long standing rule that ‘corporations and other unincorporated 5 associations must appear in court through an attorney’”) (alteration and citation omitted)); 6 see also Underdog Trucking, LLC v. Arizona Federal Credit Union, 2010 WL 3023874 (D. 7 Ariz. Aug. 2, 2010); LimoStars, Inc. v. New Jersey Car and Limo, Inc., 2011 WL 1465533 8 (D. Ariz. April 15, 2011). 9 Generally, the State of Arizona also does not permit non-lawyers to practice law on 10 behalf of other individuals, corporations or other legal entities in a judicial proceeding. See 11 Rule 31(a)(2)(A)(3) and (b), Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. While a natural person may always appear 12 pro se for himself or herself, a corporation or limited liability company is a legal entity unto 13 itself quite separate from its owners and officers. In order to respect the corporate form, 14 Arizona has also long ago adopted the rule a corporation cannot appear in court without a 15 lawyer. Jacquez v. Diem Corp., 2003 WL 25548423, at *3 (D. Ariz. 2003) (citing Boydston 16 v. Strole Development Company, 193 Ariz. 47, 969 P.2d 653 (Ariz. 1998) and Ramada Inns, 17 Inc. v. Lane & Bird Advertizing, Inc., 102 Ariz. 127, 128, 426 P.2d 395, 396 (Ariz. 1967)). 18 More recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the preclusion of a non-lawyer from 19 representing a limited liability company at a bond forfeiture hearing. State v. Liberty Bail 20 Bonds, 2008 WL 4095513, at *3 n. 6 (Az. Ct. App. 2008) (“[T]he Arizona Supreme Court 21 appears to treat corporations and limited liability companies similarly with regard to the 22 unauthorized practice of law. See, e.g., Ariz. R. Sup.Ct. 31(d)(3).”). While there are some 23 minor exceptions, none apply here. 24 The District Court of Arizona follows Arizona law regarding the practice of law. 25 Marchant v. U.S. Collections West, Inc., 12 F. Supp.2d 1001, 1005 (D. Ariz. 1998). There 26 is no doubt the filing of a complaint constitutes the “practice of law.” 27 Plaintiff PNKT LLC dba Fast Service Billing was allowed a reasonable opportunity 28 to retain a lawyer, appropriately licensed to practice law in Arizona and admitted to practice -2- 1 in this District Court, to file an Amended Complaint and represent Plaintiff PNKT LLC dba 2 Fast Service Billing in this case and was fairly warned that the failure to do so would result 3 in the Complaint being dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff PNKT LLC, dba Fast Service 4 Billing was required to retain a lawyer, appropriately licensed to practice law in Arizona and 5 admitted to practice in this District Court, who shall file an Amended Complaint herein on 6 or before Monday, June 24, 2013, or the Complaint would be dismissed without prejudice. 7 (Doc. 8) Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint nor has there been an appearance 8 entered by a lawyer, appropriate licensed to practice law in Arizona and admitted to practice 9 in this District Court. 10 11 Plaintiff and Long Nguyen having failed to timely comply with the Court’s June 14, 2013 Order, doc. 8, and on the Court’s own motion, 12 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for 13 failure to comply with this Court’s Orders. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to terminate 14 this case. 15 16 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED discharging the Court’s Order to Show Cause issued to Defendants on June 28, 2013. (Doc. 9) Dated this 3rd day of July, 2013. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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?