CMS Wireless LLC v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland et al

Filing 16

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Strike 5 Answer to Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 10/25/11. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CMS WIRELESS, LLC vs. PLAINTIFF 4:11CV00755-BRW FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Pending is Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 7). Mr. Clovis Prince has responded,1 and Plaintiff has replied.2 For the reasons set out below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. This case was removed from the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, where Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Crown Management, Inc., Crown Project Management, Inc., Prince & Associates, C. Prince and Associates Consulting, Inc. (collectively the “Prince Entities”), and others. Mr. Prince is not a licensed attorney. No counsel has entered an appearance on behalf of the Prince Entities. On October 17, 2011, Mr. Prince filed a Reply to First Amended Complaint; Motion to Dismiss; and/or Motion to Transfer Case to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, Texas (the “Reply”).3 He signed the Reply as Clovis Prince d/b/a Prince & 1 Doc. No. 8. 2 Doc. No. 9. 3 Doc. No. 5. 1 Associates In His Individual Capacity.4 Mr. Prince asserts that he is responding in his individual capacity d/b/a Prince & Associates.5 Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike points out that certain documents show that Prince & Associates is a d/b/a of Crown Product Management, Inc., and that Arkansas law prohibits corporations from proceeding pro se.6 Under Arkansas law, individuals may represent themselves, but “corporations must be represented by licensed attorneys.”7 Further, “where a party not licensed to practice law in this state attempts to represent the interests of others by submitting himself or herself to jurisdiction of a court, those actions such as the filing of pleadings, are rendered a nullity.”8 It appears that Mr. Prince, who is not licensed, is attempting to represent Crown Product Management, Inc. and its d/b/a’s. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Reply is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of October, 2011. /s/Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 Id. 5 See Doc. Nos. 5, 8. 6 Doc. No. 7. 7 All City Glass & Mirror, Inc. V. McGraw Hill Information Systems, Co., 295 Ark. 520, 521 (1988). 8 Smithco Invs. of W. Memphis, Inc. V. Morgan Keegan & Co., 370 Ark. 477, 478 (2007) (internal citations omitted). 2

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?