Richardson v. Thoroughbred Research Group, Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER denying 26 Joint Motion for Status Conference. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 6/12/2017. (LS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GREGG RICHARDSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-656-FtM-99CM

THOROUGHBRED RESEARCH
GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of the Joint Motion for Status
Conference (Doc. 26) filed on June 5, 2017.

For the reasons discussed below, the

motion is due to be denied.
By way of background, on August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Doc. 1.

On November 18,

2016, the Court issued a Case Management and Scheduling Order (“CMSO”) setting
forth various case deadlines, including a mediation deadline of May 12, 2017,
discovery deadline of June 12, 2017, and a trial term for November 6, 2017.
at 1-2.

Doc. 22

The parties recently requested, and the Court granted, an extension of their

mediation and discovery deadlines by sixty days due to defense counsel’s inability to
contact Defendant’s corporate representative.

Docs. 24, 25.

Specifically, defense

counsel stated that over the course of several weeks, members of his firm attempted
to communicate with Defendant’s corporate representative via telephone, email and

writing without success or reply.

Doc. 24 at 2. Due to the inability to communicate

with Defendant’s corporate representative, the parties were unable to complete
mediation and discovery within the deadlines set by the Court.

Id.

In the instant motion, defense counsel informs the Court that he has made a
diligent effort to contact his client’s corporate representative but has been
unsuccessful as of the time of filing the instant motion.

Doc. 26 at 1.

has been unable to contact any other employee of Defendant.

Counsel also

Id. at 2. The parties

request a status conference, although they do not state the purpose of this conference.

See Doc. 26. It appears to the Court that the parties seek guidance on how to proceed
given defense counsel’s inability to contact his client.
Upon review of the motion and the entire file, the Court finds that a status
conference is unnecessary.

If defense counsel has exhausted all reasonable options

to locate and contact his client’s corporate representative and other employees of his
client, the Court cannot assist him in that respect, except that counsel may move to
withdraw from representation.

Albertie v. Words To Works Ministries, Inc., No.

3:12-CV-923-J-34JBT, 2014 WL 12625968, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2014) (“Complete
lack of communication with a client for an extended period of time, despite counsel’s
numerous attempts to contact the client through a variety of methods, provides
sufficient grounds for withdrawal from representation.”).
According to Local Rule 2.03(e), however, a corporation may only appear and
be heard through counsel admitted to practice in the Court pursuant to Local Rules
2.01 or 2.02.

“The rule is well established that a corporation is an artificial entity

-2-

that can act only through agents, cannot appear pro se, and must be represented by
counsel.”

Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985) (citations

omitted); see also Obermaier, 2000 WL 33175446, at *1 (“A corporation can never
appear pro se.”).

As a result, if Defendant wishes to continue litigating this case, it

must do so through representation of counsel.

See Thomas v. Smith, Dean &

Assocs., Inc., No. 8:10-CV-1444-T-33EAJ, 2013 WL 646179, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21,
2013) (holding that the corporation without attorney representation must secure new
counsel if it intends to continue to litigate the case).

Accordingly, it would be

prudent for Defendant to communicate with his counsel, or to promptly retain new
counsel if it no longer desires current counsel’s further representation.

Failure to

diligently defend this action and abide by the Court’s case deadlines may result in
the imposition of sanctions.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Joint Motion for Status Conference (Doc. 26) is DENIED.
2. Defendant’s counsel is directed to mail a copy of this Order to his client.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 12th day of June, 2017.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-3-