Ifil v. Bishop Corporate Solutions
Filing
18
ORDER Granting 15 Motion to Strike. ORDERED that defendant's pro se motions to dismiss 9 and 13 are STRICKEN. FURTHER ORDERED that clerk's entry of default 7 is VACATED. FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Bishop Corporate Solutions obtain counsel within 30 day from the date of this order. Failure to do so will result in final judgment being entered against it. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/13/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
2:10-CV-2010 JCM (PAL)
WILLIS IFIL,
Plaintiff,
v.
BISHOP CORPORATE SOLUTIONS,
11
12
Defendant.
13
14
ORDER
15
Presently before the court is defendant Bishop Corporate Solutions, LLC’ response to
16
plaintiff’s motion for entry of default and motion to dismiss. (Doc. #9). Plaintiff Willis Ifil filed a
17
reply in support of his motion for entry of default and an opposition to defendant’s motion to
18
dismiss. (Doc. #12). Defendant failed to file a reply, yet filed a second motion to dismiss (doc. #13).
19
Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the defendant’s motions to dismiss (doc. #15).
20
Plaintiff Willis Ifil filed his complaint against defendant Bishop Corporate Solutions, LLC
21
on November 17, 2010, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (Doc. #1).
22
According to the plaintiff, defendant was served on January 10, 2011 (doc. #5), yet failed to respond
23
in any manner. Therefore, on March 2, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for entry of clerk’s default.
24
(Doc. #6). Subsequently, on March 3, 2011, default was entered against defendant Bishop Corporate
25
Solutions, LLC. (Doc. #7).
26
Claiming that it was never served with the complaint and that “in fact, [this was] the first
27
time [it] ha[d] seen any documents regarding this matter,” defendant filed a response to the motion
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
1
for default and a motion to dismiss. (Doc. #9). Although the defendant is a limited liability company,
2
the documents filed were done so by its president Dianne Jeanotte, and not by an attorney. In
3
response to her filings, the plaintiff filed a reply supporting entry of default and opposing dismissal.
4
(Doc. #12).
5
Proper Service
6
In his reply/opposition (doc. #12), plaintiff provides the court with evidence purporting to
7
prove that the summons and complaint were properly served on the defendant. (Doc. #12-1 Exhibit
8
A). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1), service of process is proper if it meets the
9
state of Nevada’s service process requirements. Rule 4(d)(1) of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure
10
provides that service may be made to any member of a member-managed limited liability company,
11
or any manager of a manager-managed limited liability company. Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure
12
4(d)(1)(iv) and (v).
13
Here, in the process server’s affidavit (doc. #12-1 Exhibit A), he declares that he first
14
attempted to serve process at a residence, but was unsuccessful. However, when he attempted service
15
at the address listed as Bishop Corporate Solutions, LLC’s office, a “white male who identified
16
himself as the manager” accepted service, and then threw the papers at him as he exited. (Doc. #12-1
17
Exhibit A). Plaintiff asserts that evidence of this nature establishes “a prima facie case of the account
18
of the method of service, and thus, in the absence of contrary facts, [courts] presume that [the
19
defendant] was properly served with the complaint.” Old Republic Ins. Co. V. Pacific Financial
20
Services of America, Inc., 301 F.3d 54, 57 (2nd Cir. 2002).
21
Defendant did not reply to plaintiff’s opposition, or provide the court with any facts to
22
support its assertion that it wasn’t properly served. However, when examining whether service was
23
properly effectuated, the court finds that it was not. The defendant Bishop Corporate Solutions is a
24
limited liability company in the state of Nevada, managed by managing members, as evidenced by
25
the secretary of state website. Also evident from the secretary of state website, is that Dianne
26
Jeannotte is the sole manager listed under the “Officers” section.
27
As demonstrated above, proper service on an LLC is accomplished by serving any member
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
1
of a member-managed limited liability company, or any manager of a manager-managed limited
2
liability company. Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1)(iv) and (v). As defendant’s affidavit
3
declares that a man who identified himself as a manager received the summons and complaint and
4
then threw the documents at him, service was improper. The man was not a managing member of
5
the limited liability company; he was simply the manager of the office. Dianne Jeannotte is the sole
6
manager and the proper party to be served. Thus, service was not effectuated and default (doc. #7)
7
against Bishop Corporate Solutions, LLC was improperly entered.
8
Corporate Representation/Motion To Strike
9
An entity may not appear in federal court without representation through licensed counsel,
10
and may not proceed pro se. See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194 at 202 (1993).
11
See also Osborn v. President of Bank of United States, 9 Wheat 738, 829, 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824); See
12
also Turner v. American Bar Assn., 407 F.Supp.451, 476 (1975, N.D. of Texas). Here, defendant
13
Bishop Corporate Solutions is a limited liability company, not a natural person. However, it has filed
14
two pro se motions to dismiss (doc. #9 and #13).
15
Neither pleading bears the signature of an attorney or indicates that the limited liability
16
company is represented by counsel. Accordingly, plaintiff asks this court to strike the defendant’s
17
pleadings for “engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.” (Doc. #15). Defendant failed to file an
18
opposition to this motion, and has not appeared in the case since March of 2011. The court is
19
inclined to strike the defendant’s improper pro se filings (docs. #9 and #13), and order it to obtain
20
counsel. Failure to obtain counsel within thirty (30) days from the date of this order will result in
21
final judgment being entered against defendant.
22
Good cause appearing,
23
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff Willis Ifil’s motion
24
25
26
to strike (doc. #15) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s pro se motions to dismiss (docs. #9 and
#13) be, and the same hereby are, STRICKEN.
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
1
2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that clerk’s entry of default against defendant Bishop Corporate
Solutions (doc. #7) be, and the same hereby is, VACATED.
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Bishop Corporate Solutions obtain counsel
4
within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Failure to do so will result in final judgment being
5
entered against it.
6
DATED July 13, 2011.
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-4-
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?