MB REO-FL Church-2, LLC v. Tampa For Christ Church, Inc. et al

Filing 97

ORDER: Tampa for Christ Church's pleadings are stricken. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/23/2016. (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-33AEP

TAMPA FOR CHRIST CHURCH, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff
MB

Reo-FL

Church-2,

LLC

initiated

this

action

against

Defendants Tampa for Christ Church, Inc. and Frank M. Bafford
on February 4, 2016. (Doc. # 1). Tampa for Christ Church and
Bafford were served on February 11, 2016. (Doc. ## 5-6).
On February 26, 2016, Bafford filed an omnibus motion
seeking
dismissal

several
of

the

alternative
action,

a

forms
stay

of
of

relief,

the

including

action,

and

an

extension of time to file an answer in order to permit him
and Tampa for Christ Church time to retain counsel. (Doc. #
9).

Then

on

March

8,

2016,

the

Court

entered

an

order

explaining in detail that a corporate entity, such as Tampa
for Christ Church, cannot proceed pro se in this Court. (Doc.

1 

# 17). The Court provided Tampa for Christ Church until April
6, 2016, to have counsel file a notice of appearance on its
behalf and to serve its answer. (Id. at 3). The Court also
noted that failure to comply would allow Plaintiff to apply
for the entry of a Clerk’s Default. (Id. at 4).
Bafford subsequently filed several motions for extension
of time. (Doc. ## 28, 35, 38). The Court granted one such
motion, but denied the others. (Doc. ## 29, 36, 39). On April
15, 2016, Roderick O. Ford, Esq. filed a notice of appearance
on behalf of Tampa for Christ Church and Bafford. (Doc. #
38). Tampa for Christ Church served its answer on April 25,
2016. (Doc. # 48).
Thereafter, on June 28, 2016, counsel for Tampa for
Christ Church and Bafford filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel. (Doc. # 66). The Honorable Anthony E. Porcelli,
United States Magistrate Judge, to whom the motion to withdraw
was referred, entered an Order granting Ford permission to
withdraw on July 11, 2016. (Doc. # 76). Judge Porcelli’s July
11, 2016, Order also noted that, “[a]s a corporation, Tampa
for

Christ

Church

cannot

represent

itself

and

must

be

represented by legal counsel if it wishes to continue with
these proceedings. . . . Accordingly, Tampa for Christ Church
shall retain new counsel who shall file a notice of appearance

2 

within twenty (20) days . . . .” (Id. at 2). The Order also
warned: “[f]ailure to do so will result in entry of a default
against Tampa for Christ Church.” (Id.).
Bafford filed a motion for reconsideration of Judge
Porcelli’s July 11, 2016, Order on July 20, 2016. (Doc. #
79).

Judge

Porcelli

denied

Bafford’s

motion

for

reconsideration and stated, “[i]f Frank Bafford has decided
to re-retain prior counsel Roderick O. Ford, or if Mr. Bafford
has retained any other lawyer, that lawyer need only file a
notice of appearance in this action.” (Doc. # 83).
Tampa for Christ Church failed to comply with Judge
Porcelli’s July 11, 2016, Order. And because Tampa for Christ
Church had failed to comply, the Court entered an Order on
August 4, 2016, that stated:
Tampa for Christ Church has failed to comply with
the Court’s July 11, 2016, Order. In spite of the
fact that Tampa for Christ was previously warned it
may not proceed pro se and that failure to have new
counsel file a notice of appearance would result in
the entry of default, the Court will provide Tampa
for Christ Church one last opportunity to retain
counsel.
Thus, Tampa for Christ Church shall retain counsel
and have said counsel file a notice of appearance
with this Court by August 18, 2016. Furthermore, as
this Court has already explained that Tampa for
Christ Church may not proceed pro se before this
Court——as well as the fact that the Court is
providing Tampa for Christ Church an extra 14 days
beyond the original deadline to have new counsel

3 

file a notice of appearance——motions for extension
of time will be disfavored and only granted upon
the showing of extraordinary circumstances. Failure
[to] have new counsel file a notice of appearance
by August 18, 2016, will result in an order sua
sponte
striking
Tampa
for
Christ
Church’s
pleadings. If Tampa for Christ Church’s pleadings
are stricken, Plaintiff may file an application for
the entry of Clerk’s Default.
(Doc. # 87 at 3).
Bafford then filed a motion for extension of time on
August 16, 2016, seeking yet another extension of time to
retain counsel for himself and Tampa for Christ Church. (Doc.
# 93). As noted previously, though, the Court’s August 4,
2016, Order explicitly warned that “motions for extension of
time [would] be disfavored and only granted upon the showing
of extraordinary circumstances.” (Doc. # 87 at 3). Because
Bafford’s motion failed to demonstrate what extraordinary
circumstance was preventing counsel from filing a notice of
appearance, it was denied on August 16, 2016. (Doc. # 95).
The deadline for counsel to file a notice of appearance
on behalf of Tampa for Christ Church has now passed. As of
the date of this Order, counsel has not filed a notice of
appearance on behalf of Tampa for Christ Church in spite of
three Court Orders——two of which relate directly to this
incident of attempting to compel compliance with Local Rule

4 

2.03(e)——explaining that Tampa for Christ Church may not
proceed pro se.
As the Court has explained on multiple occasions:
[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.
(Doc. # 87 at 1-2 (quoting (Doc. # 17 at 2))). Because Tampa
for

Christ

Church

has

been

afforded

more

than

ample

opportunity to comply with Local Rule 2.03(e) and the Orders
of this Court, and yet has failed to comply, the Court strikes
Tampa for Christ Church’s pleadings. With Tampa for Christ
Church’s pleadings being stricken, Plaintiff may file an
application for the entry of Clerk’s Default.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Tampa for Christ Church’s pleadings are stricken.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
23rd day of August, 2016.

5