MB REO-FL Church-2, LLC v. Tampa For Christ Church, Inc. et al
Filing
17
ORDER: Tampa for Christ Church, Inc. has until and including April 6, 2016, to retain counsel. If Tampa for Christ Church, Inc. fails to (1) have a notice of appearance of counsel filed on its behalf and (2) file a response to the Complaint by April 6, 2016, Plaintiff may promptly apply for a Clerk's Default. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 3/8/2016. (DRW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MB REO-FL CHURCH-2, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 8:16-cv-276-T-33MAP
TAMPA FOR CHRIST CHURCH, INC.,
and FRANK M. BAFFORD,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. MB REOFL Church-2, LLC instituted this action on February 4, 2016.
(Doc. # 1). Defendants Tampa for Christ Church, Inc. and Frank
M. Bafford were served on February 11, 2016. (Doc. ## 5, 6).
Thereafter, on February 26, 2016, Bafford filed an omnibus
motion
entitled
Motion
to
Dismiss,
Motion
to
Stay,
and
Alternatively, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond. (Doc.
# 9). Although, Bafford’s Motion requests, as alternative
relief, an extension of time to file a response to the
Complaint because such an extension “will give him time to
find an attorney to represent him and Tampa for Christ
Church,” (Id. at 3), the Motion cannot serve as Tampa for
Christ Church’s response to the Complaint.
1
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”). Furthermore, the
Court’s own rule, Local Rule 2.03(e), explicitly prohibits a
corporation from being heard in this Court without counsel.
Thus, technically, Tampa for Christ Church is subject to
default for failing to timely respond to the Complaint.
However, the Court will grant Tampa for Christ Church a 30day period of time in which to obtain counsel and have such
counsel file a notice of appearance on its behalf with this
Court. Once counsel has filed a notice of appearance on behalf
of Tampa for Christ Church, Tampa for Christ Church may then
file its response to the Complaint. Should Tampa for Christ
Church fail to have counsel file a notice of appearance on
its behalf and respond to the Complaint by April 6, 2016,
Plaintiff is free to promptly file an application of Clerk’s
default.
Accordingly, the Court directs Tampa for Christ Church
to obtain counsel by April 6, 2016. If Tampa for Christ Church
2
fails to do so, Plaintiff may file an application for the
entry of Clerk’s Default.
Furthermore, the Court takes this opportunity to remind
Bafford that if he wishes to proceed pro se (that is, to
represent himself without the benefit of counsel) in this
action, he must comply with all rules of Court, including the
Middle District of Florida’s Local Rules and the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Johnson v. Rosier, 578 Fed. Appx. 928,
930 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating, “[a] pro se litigant ‘is
subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’” (quoting Moon v. Newsome,
863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989))). In addition, while the
Court has granted Tampa for Christ Church an extension of
time to obtain counsel and file a response to the Complaint,
this case will proceed. Thus, the Court expects Bafford, or
his counsel, to be present at the Case Management Hearing now
scheduled for March 21, 2016, at 11:00AM.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Tampa for Christ Church, Inc. has until and including
April 6, 2016, to retain counsel. If Tampa for Christ Church,
Inc. fails to (1) have a notice of appearance of counsel filed
on its behalf and (2) file a response to the Complaint by
3
April 6, 2016, Plaintiff may promptly apply for a Clerk’s
Default.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 8th
day of March, 2016.
4
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?