SATCOMM v. PAYPAL et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying 26 Motion to Vacate. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE TILMAN E SELF, III on 7/14/2021 (TES)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
SATCOMM,
Petitioner,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
5:19-mc-00010-TES-CHW

v.
PAYPAL, et. al.,
Respondents.
ORDER

The Court dismissed SATCOMM’s case with prejudice and entered judgment
against it. [Doc. 18]. The Court dismissed SATCOMM’s action for failure to prosecute
because SATCOMM failed to obtain counsel to appear on its behalf. See [Doc. 17, pp. 3–
4]. Now, SATCOMM has filed a motion asking the Court to vacate the order dismissing
its case. See [Doc. 26]. The Court stands by its order dismissing SATCOMM’s case
because SATCOMM had no right to appear before this Court unless it was represented
by counsel—a rule the Court gave SATCOMM ample notice of and opportunity to
comply with. See, e.g., [Doc. 8]. SATCOMM ignored this rule before the Court dismissed
his case and he continues to ignore this rule now as it still has not obtained counsel.
A corporation or other artificial entity cannot appear in federal court unless it is
represented by counsel. See, e.g., Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory
Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two

centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed
counsel.”); Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985) (“The rule is well
established that a corporation is an artificial entity that . . . cannot appear pro se, and
must be represented by counsel.”). The Court was correct to dismiss SATCOMM’s case
for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, SATCOMM’s Motion to Vacate [Doc. 27] is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 14th day of July, 2021.
S/Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2