Shipman v. Marlo Enterprises, Inc. et al

Filing 13

ORDER dismissing as moot 9 Motion to Dismiss. The Court grants 12 Plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff shall have 14 days from the date of this order to file her amended complaint. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 2/9/15. (wwp)

U;
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
CHEREE SI-JIPMAN,

SO. UISL OF G

Plaintiff,
CASE NO. CV414-52

V.

MARLO ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a/

Collectron Concepts, Inc. and
MARTIN REED,
Defendants.
ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9),
to which Plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. 12) . In her
response, Plaintiff requests leave to file an amended complaint.
(Id. at 6.) No response has been filed in opposition to
Plaintiff's request. After careful consideration, Plaintiff's
request to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall
have fourteen

days

from the date of this order to file her

amended complaint. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 9) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Although Defendants' motion must be dismissed, the Court
feels compelled to note that Defendants' motion suffered from
numerous substantive and procedural deficiencies. First, it was
filed almost three months late. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b).
Second, the motion appears to have been filed by a non-attorney

purporting to represent both the individual and corporate
defendants in this action. In Federal Court, such unlicensed
representation is impermissible. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Nat'l
Indep. Theatre Exhibitors, Inc. v. Buena Vista Dist. Co., 748
F.2d 602, 609 (11th C. 1984) (holding that § 1654 precludes
individuals from appearing pro se on behalf of other persons and
that corporations must always be represented by legal counsel)
In addition, Defendants' motion is comprised entirely of
factual defenses to Plaintiff's complaint. Such arguments are
beyond the scope of a motion to dismiss and are best left for
motions seeking summary judgment. See Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola
Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1260

(11th Cir. 2009) (holding that courts

accept well-pleaded facts in complaint as true when considering
motion to dismiss). Should Defendants desire to assert any
further arguments following Plaintiff's filing of her amended
complaint, they are reminded that all filings must comply with
both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's local
rules.
714

SO ORDERED this

/ day of February 2015.
01!

WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR.,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2