Never Lost Golf, LLC et al v. Steinert et al
Filing
30
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 11 MOTION (First) for Default Judgment as to Non-Answering Defendant Harribert Pamp by Plaintiffs Michael Carnell, Never Lost Golf, LLC, The N.L.G. Living Trust; GRANTING 13 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(bi F)(2) & (3) by Defendants Markus Schumann, Maia Steinert, Chrisoph Stephan. All claims against Defendants Maia Steinert, Christoph Stephan and Markus Schumann are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This leaves Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Ralf Menwegen, Steinert & Stephan and HarriBert Pamp. Each LLC and Trust Plaintiff WARNED that the Court will dismiss it without further notice if counsel does not enter an appearance for it by 10/11/2016. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 9/27/16. (cc: ADM Hotels and Resorts Group LLC; Never Lost Golf LLC; The N.L.G. Living Trust; Michael Carnell; Ralf Menwegen). (cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
NEVER LOST GOLF, LLC;
MICHAEL CARNELL, d/b/a The Never Lost
Golf Tee Saver and d/b/a The Never Lost
Golf Tee Saver Mat System;
THE N.L.G. LIVING TRUST, by Teresa
O’Keefe and Grant L. Holloway, Trustees;
and
ADM HOTELS AND RESORTS GROUP,
LLC;
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 3:15-CV-489-JVB-MGG
v.
MAIA STEINERT,
CHRISTOPH STEPHAN,
RALF MENWEGEN,
STEINERT & STEPHAN,
MARKUS SCHUMANN, and
HARRIBERT PAMP,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
A.
Background and procedural posture
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 22, 2015. (Compl., DE 1.)
On January 27, 2016, Plaintiffs moved for entry of default against Defendant Pamp. (Pls.’
Mot. Entry Default, DE 11.) The same day, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. (Am. Compl.,
DE 12).
On February 16, 2016, Defendants Steinert, Stephan, and Schumann moved to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue. (Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss, DE 13.) On February 26, 2016,
Plaintiffs moved for an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss, noting that
Plaintiffs would retain new co-counsel “shortly” to help with the response. (Pls.’ Mot. Extension,
DE 15.)
But on March 15, 2015, without the appearance of any new co-counsel, Plaintiffs moved
for a further extension to respond and Plaintiffs’ attorney moved to withdraw. (Pls.’
Supplemental Mot. Extension, DE 16; Mot. Withdraw, DE 17.)
On March 17, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted the attorney’s withdrawal regarding
four of the five Plaintiffs and allowed the attorney an opportunity to complete the withdrawal
process regarding the fifth Plaintiff. (Order, DE 18 at 2.) The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff
Carnell to file a status report regarding his representation intentions by April 18, 2016,
cautioning him that failure to respond may result in dismissal of this case. (Id.) The Magistrate
Judge also noted that the LLC Plaintiffs and trust Plaintiff cannot litigate this case without
representation, ordered these Plaintiffs to file status reports by April 18, 2016, indicating whether
they intended to secure counsel, and cautioned them that failure to respond may result in
dismissal of this case. (Id. at 3.) Finally, the Magistrate Judge extended the deadline for all
Plaintiffs to respond to the motion to dismiss to May 18, 2016. (Id.)
On April 14, 2016, the attorney for the fifth Plaintiff corrected the defect precluding his
withdrawal from representation of that Plaintiff. (Am. Mot. Withdraw, DE 19.)
On April 26, 2016, Plaintiff Carnell “on behalf of all plaintiffs” filed a status report
asserting that all Plaintiffs intended to retain new counsel and asking for more time to do so.
(Status Report, DE 20 at 2.)
On April 28, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted the attorney’s withdrawal from the fifth
Plaintiff. (Order, DE 21 at 1.) The Magistrate Judge reiterated that the LLC Plaintiffs could not
2
proceed in this case without counsel. (Id. at 2.) The Magistrate Judge gave all Plaintiffs until
May 27, 2016, to secure counsel, cautioning them that failure to respond may result in dismissal
of this case. (Id. at 2.) The Magistrate Judge also extended the deadline for all Plaintiffs to
respond to the motion to dismiss to May 27, 2016. (Id. at 2.)
On June 16, 2016, the Magistrate Judge extended the deadline for all Plaintiffs to respond
to the motion to dismiss to July 15, 2016. (Order, DE 23 at 2.) But on July 13, 2016, Plaintiff
Carnell asked for another extension to retain counsel and respond to the motion to dismiss. (Mot.
Extension, DE 24.)
On July 20, 2016, Plaintiff Carnell, still pro se but still purporting to speak on behalf of
all Plaintiffs, moved for a cease and desist order forbidding all Defendants from having any
contact with any Plaintiff. (Mot. Cease and Desist Order, DE 25.)
On July 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge stayed all proceedings until September 1, 2016,
and noted that if by that date no counsel had appeared for the LLC Plaintiffs or trust Plaintiff,
then the Court would consider dropping them from this case. (Order, DE 26 at 1–2.) The
Magistrate Judge also extended the deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss to September
15, 2016, for any represented entity Plaintiffs and for Plaintiff Carnell regardless of
representation. (Id. at 2.)
The stay lifted and still no new attorney appeared for the Plaintiffs. On September 6,
2016, the Magistrate Judge ordered the entity Plaintiffs to file a status report by September 22,
2016, regarding why they should not be dropped from this case. (Order, DE 27 at 2.) Yet again,
the Magistrate Judge cautioned these Plaintiffs that failure to respond may result in dismissal of
this case. (Id. at 3.) The Magistrate Judge also noted that the deadline for all Plaintiffs, regardless
3
of representation status, to respond to the motion to dismiss remained September 15, 2016. (Id. at
2 n.1.)
On September 21, 2016, Carnell, pro se, purporting to speak on behalf of all Plaintiffs
except ADM Hotels and Resorts Group, filed a status report. (Status Report, DE 29.) Carnell
claims he and the Plaintiffs for whom he purports to speak have found counsel and are in the last
phase of hiring this counsel. (Id. at 2.) Carnell also claims Defendant Steinert “and/or her
subsidiaries” are engaging in conduct causing a security concern for the safety of Carnell and his
family. (Id. at 2.) But Carnell does not provide details.
B.
Discussion
1.
Motion for entry of default against Defendant Pamp
Plaintiffs moved for an entry of default against Defendant Pamp, but filed an amended
complaint the same day. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for entry of default (DE
11) as moot.
2.
LLCs and trust Plaintiffs
Despite multiple warnings that they cannot proceed pro se, and despite multiple
extensions to allow time to find counsel, the LLC and trust Plaintiffs remain unrepresented.
An LLC cannot litigate pro se or be represented in litigation by a non-lawyer. 1756 W.
Lake St. LLC v. Am. Chartered Bank, 787 F.3d 383, 385 (7th Cir. 2015). Likewise, a trust cannot
litigate pro se or be represented in litigation by a non-lawyer. See In re IFC Credit Corp., 663
4
F.3d 315, 318 (7th Cir. 2011); see also Lambrecht v. Taurel, No. 1:08-CV-68, 2010 WL
2985943, at *1 (S.D. Ind. July 27, 2010).
On the basis of the recent status report, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Never Lost Golf,
LLC, The N.L.G. Living Trust, and ADM Hotels and Resorts Group, LLC, until October 11,
2016, to retain counsel to appear in this case. If counsel does not appear for each of these
Plaintiffs by October 11, 2016, the Court will dismiss all LLC and trust Plaintiffs lacking counsel
of record, without further notice.
3.
Motion to dismiss
Defendants Steinert, Stephan, and Schumann moved to dismiss this case for lack of
personal jurisdiction and for improper venue. These Defendants argue that they are German
citizens with “no relationship to Indiana.” (Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, DE 14 at 5.)
Despite multiple extensions, Plaintiffs failed to respond to this motion to dismiss. Failure
to respond to arguments raised in a motion to dismiss results in waiver or forfeiture. Goodpaster
v. City of Indianapolis, 736 F.3d 1060 at 1075 (7th Cir. 2013). Therefore, Plaintiffs waived or
forfeited any argument that this Court has personal jurisdiction over these Defendants, or that
venue with respect to these Defendants is proper here.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss (DE 13) and DISMISSES all
claims against Defendants Steinert, Stephan, and Schumann, without prejudice.
5
C.
Conclusion
In sum, the Court DENIES the motion for entry of default against Defendant Pamp (DE
11) as moot, without prejudice.
The Court warns each LLC and trust Plaintiff that the Court will dismiss it without
further notice if counsel does not enter an appearance for it by October 11, 2016.
The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss (DE 13) and DISMISSES all claims against
Defendants Steinert, Stephan, and Schumann, without prejudice.
This leaves Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Menwegen, the law firm of Steinert &
Stephan, and Harribert Pamp.
SO ORDERED on September 27, 2016.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?