NACM Tampa, Inc. et al v. Mensh et al

Filing 49

ORDER. Sunray Construction Notices, Inc.'s pleadings are stricken. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/5/2016. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
NACM TAMPA, INC. et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:15-cv-1776-T-33TGW

ALEXANDER MENSH d/b/a MONSTER
DEMOLITION, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. NACM
Tampa, Inc. and NACM Services Corp. initiated this action
against Defendants Alexander Mensh d/b/a Monster Demolition,
Jacqueline Mensh, Ariela Owens a/k/a Ariela Wagner and Ariela
Wagner-Owens,

Sunray

Construction

Notices,

Inc.,

Sunray

Construction Solutions, LLC, Nationwide Notice, Inc., and
Reach Technology, LLC on July 30, 2015. (Doc. # 1). Sunray
Construction Notices, Inc. was served process on August 5,
2015. (Doc. # 11). Keith Dennis Skorewicz, Esq. filed a Notice
of Appearance on behalf of Sunray Construction Notices, Inc.
on September 3, 2015. (Doc. # 17).
Thereafter, on October 28, 2015, Sunray Construction
Notices, Inc.’s counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

1 

for

Sunray

Construction

Notices,

Inc.

(Doc.

#

43).

The

Honorable Judge Thomas G. Wilson, United States Magistrate
Judge, to whom the Motion to Withdraw was referred, entered
an

Order

directing

Sunray

Construction

Notices,

Inc.’s

counsel to serve a copy of the Motion to Withdraw, along with
Judge’s Wilson Order, on Sunray Construction Notices, Inc.
(Doc. # 44). Judge Wilson further directed said counsel to
file a notice or certificate of such service with the Court.
(Id.). Counsel for Sunray Construction Notices, Inc. filed
the required certificate of service on November 3, 2015. (Doc.
# 45).
As such, on November 19, 2015, Judge Wilson granted the
Motion to Withdraw. (Doc. # 46). The Order granting the Motion
to Withdraw also directed Sunray Construction Notices, Inc.
to file a notice of appearance of new counsel within 30 days.
(Id. at 1). The Order specifically noted, “[i]f no such notice
is filed, a default against this corporation [i.e., Sunray
Construction Notices, Inc.,] may occur because a corporation
must be represented by counsel and cannot appear pro se. Local
Rule 2.03(e).” (Id.).
Sunray Construction Notices, Inc. failed to comply with
Judge Wilson’s November 19, 2015, Order. And because Sunray
Construction had not filed a notice of appearance of new

2 

counsel as directed, the Court entered an Order on December
23, 2015, that stated, in part, “Sunray Construction Notices,
Inc. shall file a notice of appearance of new counsel by
January 5, 2016, in order to be in compliance with Local Rule
2.03(e). Failure to file said notice may result in Sunray
Construction Notices, Inc.’s pleadings being stricken.” (Doc.
# 47). Sunray Construction Notices, Inc. failed to file the
required notice of appearance of new counsel as directed by
the Court.
In light of Sunary Construction Notices, Inc.’s second
failure to comply, the Court entered an Order on January 15,
2016, that stated:
A long line of cases hold that corporate
entities may not appear pro se in this Court. See
Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th
Cir. 1985)(stating, “[t]he rule is well established
that a corporation is an artificial entity that can
act only through agents, cannot appear pro se, and
must be represented by counsel”); Textron Fin.
Corp. v. RV Having Fun Yet, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-2-J34TEM, 2010 WL 1038503, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 19,
2010)(stating,
“a
corporation’s
financial
constraints do not excuse the requirement that it
have legal representation in Court proceedings”);
United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579, 581-82
(7th Cir. 2008)(stating, “[p]ro se litigation is a
burden on the judiciary, and the burden is not to
be borne when the litigant has chosen to do business
in entity form. He must take the burdens with the
benefits”)(internal citations omitted); see also
Local Rule 2.03(e), M.D. Fla.
Accordingly,
the
Court
directs
Sunray
Construction Notices, Inc. to obtain counsel by

3 

February 1, 2016. Failure to do so will result in
an Order sua sponte striking Sunray Construction
Notices, Inc.’s pleadings. If Sunray Construction
Notices, Inc.’s pleadings are stricken, NACM Tampa,
Inc. and NACM Services Corp. may file an
application for the entry of Clerk’s Default. If
and when a Clerk’s Default is entered against
Sunray Construction Notices, Inc., NACM Tampa, Inc.
and NACM Services Corp. may promptly move for entry
of default judgment as to Sunray Construction
Notices, Inc.
(Doc. # 48 at 3-4).
As

of

the

date

of

this

Order,

Sunray

Construction

Notices, Inc. has not filed the required notice of appearance
of new counsel, despite being offered three opportunities to
do so. Furthermore, Sunray Construction Notices, Inc. had 77
days’

notice

that

it

was

required

to

file

a

notice

of

appearance of new counsel and 17, plus 3, days’ notice that
its pleadings would be stricken without further notice if it
failed to file a notice of appearance of new counsel.
Because

Sunray

Construction

Notices,

Inc.

has

been

afforded more than ample opportunity to comply with Local
Rule 2.03(e) and three Court Orders, and yet has failed to
comply, the Court strikes Sunray Construction Notices, Inc.’s
pleadings. With Sunray Construction Notices, Inc.’s pleadings
being stricken, NACM Tampa, Inc. and NACM Services Corp. may
file an application for the entry of Clerk’s Default.
Accordingly, it is

4 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Sunray

Construction

Notices,

Inc.’s

pleadings

are

stricken.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 5th
day of February, 2016.

5