Bashore v. Performance Plumbing of Southwest Florida, Inc. et al

Filing 12

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Strike Defendant's Pro Se Answer to Complaint, striking 5 Defendant Performance Plumbing of Southwest Florida, Inc.'s Response to Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial. Defendant Performance Plumbing of Southwe st Florida, Inc. shall have up to and including 9/5/2014 to secure counsel and respond to Plaintiff's Complaint; Defendant Larry Langley, in his individual capacity, shall have up to and including 9/5/2014 to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. The deadlines set forth in the 7 FLSA Scheduling Order are stayed pending further order of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 8/5/2014. (ALB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JOSHUA BASHORE, on his own
behalf and others similarly situated
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-296-FtM-29CM

PERFORMANCE PLUMBING OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.,
LARRY LANGLEY and RANDAL
LANGLEY,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Joshua Bashore’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Strike
Defendant's Pro Se Answer to Complaint (Doc. 6), filed on July 11, 2014. Plaintiff
argues that Defendant Performance Plumbing of Southwest Florida, Inc.’s Response
to Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 5) should be stricken because it was
filed by the company’s President, Larry Langley, who is also named as a Defendant
in his individual capacity but who is not an attorney. Doc. 6 at 1. No response to
the motion to strike has been filed by any Defendant, and the time for doing so has
expired.
Plaintiff is correct that corporate defendants may only appear and defend
through counsel. Middle District of Florida Local Rule 2.03(e) states: “A corporation
may appear and be heard only through counsel admitted to practice in the Court
pursuant to Rule 2.01 or 2.02.” See also Re/Max, LLC v. Property Professionals of

Tampa Bay, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-419-T-33TGW, 2014 WL 2854991, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr.
22, 2014) (citing Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985)).
Thus, because Larry Langley is not an attorney and he filed the Response on behalf
of Defendant Performance Plumbing of Southwest Florida, Inc. (“Performance”),1 the
Response will be stricken. The Court will permit Performance thirty (30) days to
secure counsel, who should file a Notice of Appearance by that date. If Performance
is unable to do so, it may seek an extension from the Court; however, Performance
should make every effort to secure counsel within the thirty days provided by this
Order.
Larry Langley may represent himself as a named individual defendant,
referred to as proceeding pro se. In the event he chooses to do so, he may find helpful
information and resources in a section entitled “Proceeding Without a Lawyer”
featured on the Court’s website, www.flmd.uscourts.gov. Mr. Langley is reminded
that, although some leniency is afforded pro se litigants, if he chooses to proceed
without counsel he must still act in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Middle District of Florida Local Rules. Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d
1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002) (noting that despite certain leniency afforded pro se
parties, they must follow procedures). Failure to do so could result in the denial of
any motions or requests for relief from the Court. The Court’s Local Rules may also
be found on the Court’s website.

1

At the time he filed the Response on behalf of Performance, Mr. Langley had not yet
been served as a defendant in his individual capacity. See Doc. 10.

-2-

Mr. Langley should consult those resources before filing any future documents
to ensure they are in proper form and comply with the applicable Rules. As an
example, the Response filed by Mr. Langley on behalf of Performance was not in
proper form. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that when
responding to a pleading (in this case, Plaintiff’s Complaint), a party must state in
short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it and admit or deny
the allegations asserted by the opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b).

The Court’s

Guide to Proceeding Without a Lawyer also explains how to properly respond to a
complaint:
An answer includes the defendant’s responses to the
plaintiff’s claims (he or she admits or denies each
allegation), affirmative defenses (a claim is barred by the
statute of limitations, for example), and any counterclaim
against the plaintiff.

See § 7.2 Answering the Complaint.

Any pro se answer filed by an individual

Defendant should also contain numbered paragraphs that correspond to the
numbered paragraphs in Plaintiff’s Complaint. As explained above, the allegations
set forth in each paragraph should be separately admitted or denied.
Because the Response that Mr. Langley filed on behalf of Performance will be
stricken, no Defendant will properly have responded to the Complaint. A Return of
Service filed on July 22, 2014 states that Larry Langley was served with a copy of the
summons and Complaint on July 16, 2014. Doc. 10. Thus, the time for him to
respond has not yet run (the 21-day period for filing a response expires on August 6,

-3-

2014). The Court will therefore sua sponte extend the time for Larry Langley to
respond to the Complaint for a period of thirty days.2
If Larry Langley chooses to file a response pro se, he should consult the Court’s
website and Local Rules for guidance in doing so, or he is free to secure counsel who
may file a response on his behalf. Whether filed by Mr. Langley pro se or by counsel
on his behalf, Mr. Langley (in his individual capacity) must file a response to the
Complaint within thirty (30) days or seek an extension of the time for doing so by that
date.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant's Pro Se Answer to Complaint

(Doc. 6) is GRANTED.
2.

Defendant Performance Plumbing of Southwest Florida, Inc.’s Response

to Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 5) is STRICKEN.

The Clerk is

directed to remove it from the docket.
3.

Defendant Performance Plumbing of Southwest Florida, Inc. is not

permitted to appear in this action without representation by counsel and shall
therefore have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, up to and including
September 5, 2014, to secure counsel who should file a Notice of Appearance and a
response to Plaintiff’s Complaint on or before that date.

2

To date, there has been to Return of Service filed as to Defendant Randal Langley.
Thus, an extension of the period for him to file a response is not warranted at this time.

-4-

4.

Larry Langley, in his individual capacity, shall have an additional thirty

(30) days, up to and including September 5, 2014, during which to respond to
Plaintiff’s Complaint.
5.

The deadlines set forth in the Court’s FLSA Scheduling Order (Doc. 7)

are STAYED pending further order of the Court.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 5th day of August, 2014.

Copies:
Counsel of record
Unrepresented parties

-5-