Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Global Ocean Freight, Inc.

Filing 127

ORDER granting Motion to Strike 124 . Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonagafor Judge Ungaro on 4/21/09. (lc2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.09-60394-CIV-UNGARO HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,

GLOBAL OCEAN FREIGHT, INC., et al., Defendants.

ORDER STRIKING ANSWER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Answer and Supporting Memorandum of Law Thereon, filed April 30,2009 (D.E. 124). THE COURT has considered the Motion and the pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. On April 20,2009, Defendant Global Ocean Freight, Inc. ("Global Freight") filed its "Answer" to the Complaint (D.E. 121). However, the answer was not filed by an attorney, but rather the owner of Global Freight. It is well established that a corporation is an artificial entity that can only act through its agents, cannot appear pro se and must be represented by counsel. See Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (1 1th Cir. 1985). Global Freight is a corporation and cannot proceedpro se. Global Freight's owner states in the "Complaint" that she cannot afford legal counsel, but would welcome the Court's appointment of legal counsel. The Court declines to do so. "The appointment of counsel in a civil case is a privilege and not a constitutional right." Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat '1 Lab., 7 11 F.2d 15 10, 1522 n. 19 (1 1th Cir. 1983). ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion (D.E. 124) is GRANTED and Defendant Global Freight's "Answer" (D.E. 121) is STRICKEN. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this g d a y of April, 2009.
f

1 I

i

I

I
i
f

! i

i
1

I
P

1

i

URSULA UNGARO copies provided: Counsel of Record

&L~&L