Nelson et al v. Acorn Stair & Woodwork, Inc. et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the purported Motions to Dismiss of defendants AS&W, LLC and Acorn Stair and Woodwork, Inc. are stricken. The Clerk of Court shall delete these documents from the record. [Docs. 15 and 16]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Lawrence E. Pecor, IV's Motion to Quash Subpoena is DENIED. [Doc. 17]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Memorandum and Order to Lawrence E. Pecor, IV, at 915 Shady Path Drive, St. Peters, Missouri, 63376, by first-class U.S. mail and UPS Signature service.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 1/4/2016. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TERRY M. NELSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ACORN STAIR & WOODWORK,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-1200 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of the file. On December 22, 2015, defendant
AS&W, LLC filed a document entitled “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s [sic] Lawsuit with Prejudice
Against AS&W, LLC,” which is signed by Larry Pecor, III. That same day, defendant Acorn Stair
and Woodwork, Inc. filed a document entitled “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s [sic] Lawsuit with
Prejudice Against Acorn Stair and Woodwork, Inc., an Administratively Dissolved Missouri
Corporation,” which is signed by Larry Pecor.
Defendants AS&W, LLC and Acorn Stair and Woodwork, Inc., both of which are corporate
entities, appear to be attempting to proceed without the benefit of licensed counsel. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1654, “parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.” A
corporation, however, is an artificial entity that can only act through agents, cannot appear pro se,
and must be represented by a licensed attorney. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194,
201-02 (1993); Carr Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 698 F.2d 952, 953 (8th Cir. 1983). Mr. Pecor
is not licensed to practice law. A non-lawyer pro se party cannot represent another entity in court.
Steele v. City of Bemidji, 257 F.3d 902, 905 (8th Cir. 2001) (pro se plaintiff could not represent
corporate plaintiff); Knoefler v. United Bank of Bismarck, 20 F.3d 347, 348 (8th Cir. 1994) (non-

lawyer had no right to represent another entity in federal court). Defendants’ purported motions to
dismiss are therefore not properly filed, and the Court will order them stricken from the record.1
Also before the Court is a motion to quash subpoena. On December 22, 2015, Lawrence E.
Pecor, IV, who was previously a defendant in this case, filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena that was
served upon him as the registered agent for AS&W, LLC.2 Mr. Pecor did not attach the subpoena
to his motion. As grounds for relief, Mr. Pecor states that he “does not have access to or the ability
to produce the information relating to the subpoena served upon him.” Doc. 17. Plaintiffs state in
their response to the motion to quash that the subpoena also required Mr. Pecor’s appearance for
deposition, and if Mr. Pecor does not have the documents in question, he can so state at the
deposition. The Court agrees. The Court will deny Mr. Pecor’s Motion to Quash Subpoena.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the purported Motions to Dismiss of defendants AS&W,
LLC and Acorn Stair and Woodwork, Inc. are stricken. The Clerk of Court shall delete these
documents from the record. [Docs. 15 and 16]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Lawrence E. Pecor, IV’s Motion to Quash Subpoena is
DENIED. [Doc. 17]

1

The Court file reflects that summons and complaint were served on defendants Acorn Stair
& Woodwork, Inc. and AS&W, LLC on August 6, 2015, and October 6, 2015, respectively, and that
responsive pleadings were due within twenty (20) days of those dates. The “Motions to Dismiss”
were filed on December 22, 2015, and therefore would be untimely even if they were properly filed.
2

The Motions to Dismiss were filed by Larry Pecor, III, and Larry Pecor, while the Motion
to Quash was filed by Lawrence E. Pecor, IV. The Court notes, however, that the handwriting on
the Motions to Dismiss and that on the Motion to Quash is identical. Furthermore, the phone
numbers on the documents are the same. Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all
motions filed with the Court must be signed by the party’s attorney or party personally.
Misrepresenting oneself to the Court in the filing of motion is a violation of Rule 11, and may result
in sanctions, including monetary penalties.
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this
Memorandum and Order to Lawrence E. Pecor, IV, at 915 Shady Path Drive, St. Peters, Missouri,
63376, by first-class U.S. mail and UPS Signature service.

__________________________________
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this

4th

day of January, 2016.

3