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)

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