Koeckritz et al v. Koeckritz Rugs, Inc. et al

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 4/24/2013: The complaint is dismissed without prejudice to seeking leave to file a consolidated complaint in Koeckritz v. Koeckritz Rugs, Inc., et al., Case No. 12 C 9544 (N.D. Ill.). Thi s case is administratively closed. The plaintiffs motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 4 and for attorney representation 5 are denied as moot. Because the court is administratively closing this case, no filing fee will be assessed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), nor will a strike be imposed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Mailed notice [For further details see opinion.] (mgh, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Ronald A. Guzmán

CASE NUMBER

13 C 1115

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

4/24/2013

Phillip Koeckritz (#90514), et al. vs. Koeckritz Rugs, Inc., et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

The complaint is dismissed without prejudice to seeking leave to file a consolidated complaint in Koeckritz v.
Koeckritz Rugs, Inc., et al., Case No. 12 C 9544 (N.D. Ill.). This case is administratively closed. The plaintiff’s
motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [#4] and for attorney representation [#5] are denied as moot.
Because the court is administratively closing this case, no filing fee will be assessed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b), nor will a “strike” be imposed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
O [For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
The plaintiff, an inmate at the McHenry County Jail, has brought this pro se civil action purportedly
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 17 U.S.C. § 101 et al., The Copyright Act. The plaintiff, who also seeks to
sue on behalf of his corporation, claims copyright infringement in connection with rugs being sold on
amazon.com, ebay.com, and focusonrugs.com by George Koeckritz and a second rug company. The plaintiff
has initiated three similar actions this year to date.
The Court finds that the above-captioned matter substantially overlaps with a case already on file in this
district. See Koeckritz v. Koeckritz Rugs, et al. (Case No. 12 C 9544), pending before the Hon. Milton Shadur.
[In addition, U.S. PACER reflects that a suit by the plaintiff against amazon.com is pending in federal court in
Washington State]. This suit involves the same parties and concerns the same essential dispute. The Court
discerns no basis for multiple lawsuits arising from the same core chain of events in each action.
Furthermore, the plaintiff has counsel in Case No. 12 C 9544, which avoids any issues associated with
his pro se representation of Epitome, Inc. A pro se non-lawyer cannot represent another individual or entity.
See, e.g., Muzikowski v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 322 F.3d 918, 924 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Rowland v.
California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993). Nor can Epitome, Inc., represent itself pro se. Id.; see
also JJH. Scandia Down Corp. v. Euroquilt, Inc., 772 F.2d 1423, 1427 (7th Cir. 1985) (“A ‘corporation’ is an
abstraction, and abstractions cannot appear pro se.”). Corporations must be represented by a lawyer. Navin v.
Park Ridge (CONTINUED)
AWL

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT (continued)
School Dist. 64, 270 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 2001) (a non-lawyer cannot prosecute a suit on behalf of another).
Under the circumstances, the best course of action is for the plaintiff to pursue his claims under the case number
in which he has an attorney.
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed as duplicative of an already pending lawsuit.
Dismissal is without prejudice to seeking leave to file a consolidated complaint in Koeckritz v. Koeckritz Rugs, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 12 C 9544 (N.D. Ill.), asserting all claims against all defendants. This case is administratively
closed. The plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [#4] and for attorney representation [#5]
are denied as moot.

Page 2 of 2