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)

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 www.myazbar.org/ (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-