Jonas et al v. Waterman et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 19 Motion to Vacate ; granting 20 Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appearance Signed by Jeremiah C. Lynch on 3/25/2013. (TXB, )Copy mailed to Plaintiff (NOS, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

EDWIN R. JONAS III, and BLACKTAIL
MOUNTAIN RANCH CO., L.L.C., a
Nevada limited liability company,

CV 13-16-M-DLC-JCL

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
vs.
RONALD F. WATERMAN, ESQ.,
GOUGH, SHANAHAN, JOHNSON &
WATERMAN, a professional limited
liability partnership, and
HONORABLE CHARLES B. McNEIL,
a/k/a C.B McNEIL,
Defendants.
I.

Background
On March 13, 2013, the Court entered an order, upon motion of Defendants

Ronald Waterman and Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman, PLLP, advising
Plaintiff Blacktail Mountain Ranch Co., LLC, (collectively referred to as
“Waterman”) that it could not appear in this matter through co-Plaintiff Edwin
Jonas III, but must be represented by a licensed attorney. The order further
directed Blacktail Mountain Ranch Co., LLC to file a status report on or before
March 27, 2013, advising the Court whether it has retained an attorney to
-1-

represent it. Because it was clear to the Court that Mr. Jonas could not represent
Blacktail Mountain Ranch Co., LLC, the Court entered the referenced order
without awaiting a response from the Plaintiffs.
In response, Plaintiffs filed a motion titled “Motion to Vacate Order of
March 1, 2013 Pursuant to Rule 60(b),” asserting the Court committed error by not
affording them the opportunity to respond to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss
and assuming that Blacktail Mountain Ranch Co., LLC is a corporation. In
addition, the Plaintiffs moved the Court to grant them an additional 60 days to
retain counsel in the event the Court does not vacate the order of March 13, 2013,
and effectively deny Defendant Waterman’s motion to dismiss. Finally, the
Plaintiffs filed a brief addressing the propriety of allowing Jonas to represent
Blacktail Mountain Ranch Co., LLC.
The Plaintiffs advise the Court that Defendant Waterman opposes both
motions. Notwithstanding Defendant Waterman’s objection, the Court deems it
advisable in the interests of judicial economy to dispose of both motions without
awaiting a response from Defendant Waterman.
II.

Discussion
A.

Motion to Vacate the March 13, 2013, Order

The Plaintiffs fail to present a persuasive, let alone compelling, argument
-2-

that the Court’s March 13, 2013, Order disallowing Blacktail Mountain Ranch
Co., LLC to appear in this matter through Mr. Jonas should be vacated.
“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.” Rowland v.
Calif. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02
(199)(citing Osborn v. President of Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 829, 6
L.Ed. 204 (1824)). And as noted by the Court in Rowland, but for a “few aberrant
cases”, the lower courts have uniformly held that 28 U.S.C. § 1654, “does not
allow corporations, partnerships, or associations to appear in federal court
otherwise than through a licensed attorney.” Rowland, 506 U.S. at 202 (citations
omitted). Thus, it is a longstanding rule that “[c]orporations and other
unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.” D-Beam
Ltd. Partnership v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004)
(citations omitted). Consequently, a limited liability company – a legal entity
distinct from its members – may appear in federal court only through a licensed
attorney. See United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579, 581-82 (7th Cir. 2008);
Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 140 (2nd Cir. 2007).
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to craft an exception to this well-established
rule because Mr. Jonas is the managing member and fifty percent beneficial owner
-3-

Blacktail Mountain Ranch Co., LLC. And, more importantly, because he is a
former practicing attorney – although apparently not currently licensed. Plaintiffs
argue the Court should look beyond Mr. Jonas’s unlicensed status and allow him
to represent Blacktail Mountain Ranch Co., LLC because he is competent to
undertake that representation. The Court will not do so.
An attorney may appear on behalf of a party in this Court if he is admitted to
the bar of this Court or granted permission to appear pro hac vice. Local Rule
83.1. To receive permission to appear pro hac vice, a non-member attorney must,
at a minium, be “an active member in good standing of the Bar of any United
States Court or of the highest court of any state or of any territory or insular
possession of the United States. L.R. 83.1(d)(1). Based upon the statements
contained in the Plaintiffs’ brief, it appears that Mr. Jonas does not satisfy the
“active member” requirement of Local Rule 83.1(d)(1). But if Mr. Jonas can
establish he satisfies the criteria Local Rule 83.1(d)(1) he may seek permission to
appear pro hac vice on behalf of Blacktail Mountain Ranch Co., LLC. As it
stands, however, the Court’s order of March 13, 2013, requiring Blacktail
Mountain Ranch Co., LLC to appear through a licensed attorney will remain in
effect.
B.

Motion for Additional Time
-4-

As noted, the Plaintiffs move, in the alternative, for an additional 60 days to
secure licensed counsel to represent Blacktail Mountain Ranch Co., LLC. Under
the circumstances, the Court deems it appropriate to grant Blacktail Mountain
Ranch Co., LLC additional time to secure counsel. But the Court finds that 45
additional days, until May 9, 2013, will be a sufficient period of time for Blacktail
Mountain Ranch Co., LLC to secure the services of a licensed attorney.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated, Plaintiffs’ motion requesting the Court to vacate the

order of March 13, 2013, is DENIED.
The Plaintiffs’ motion requesting additional time to secure the services of a
licensed attorney to represent Blacktail Mountain Ranch Co., LLC is GRANTED,
and Blacktail Mountain Ranch Co., LLC is afforded until May 9, 2013, to have a
licensed attorney enter an appearance on its behalf.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 25th day of March, 2013

Jeremiah C. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge

-5-