DIGITAL ADVERTISING DISPLAYS INC. v. DHANDO INVESTMENTS INC. et al
Filing
5
LETTER OPINION FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants and Retain Counsel is DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 05/04/2018. (sms)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHAMBERS OF
MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST.
NEWARK, NJ 07101
973-645-5903
SUSAN D. WIGENTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
May 4, 2018
Jeff Storey
Digital Advertising Displays Inc.
P.O. Box 63
Larkspur, CO 80118
Plaintiff
LETTER OPINION FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
Re:
Digital Advertising Displays Inc. v. Dhando Investments Inc. et al.
Civil Action No. 18-2171 (SDW) (CLW)
Mr. Storey:
Before this Court is Plaintiff Digital Advertising Displays, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for
Extension of Time to Serve Defendants and Retain Counsel. This Court having considered
Plaintiff’s submission, having reached its decision without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 78, for the reasons discussed below, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion and
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.
BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants in this Court. (Dkt. No. 1.)
Plaintiff, a “corporation organized in the State of Colorado, having its principle place of business
at 9200 East Mineral Ave., Centenniel, CO 80112” filed its Complaint “acting Pro Se.” (Id. at 12). On March 1, 2018, the Clerk of the Court entered a Quality Control Message on the
electronic docket, informing Plaintiff that “although an individual is entitled to proceed pro se, a
corporation must be represented by counsel.” On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff informed the Court that
it “plans to have legal counsel in place for this case and we are currently in the process of
interviewing legal counsel now.” (Dkt. No. 3.) On April 30, 2018, Plaintiff moved for an
extension of time to serve defendants and to retain counsel. (Dkt. No. 4.)
DISCUSSION
“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. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II
Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); see also United States v. Cocivera, 204
F.3d 566, 572-73 (3d Cir. 1996); In re 69 N. Franklin Tpk., LLC, 693 Fed. Appx. 141, 144 (3d
Cir. 2017). Plaintiff was informed of this requirement on March 1, 2018, but has not yet hired an
attorney. Plaintiff has had ample time to cure this deficiency and allowing this matter to proceed
any longer would “eviscerate the requirement that corporations and other entities by represented
by counsel.” In re 69 N. Franklin Tpk., 693 Fed. Appx. at 144 (internal citations omitted).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied and its Complaint dismissed without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Serve
Defendants and Retain Counsel is DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An appropriate order follows.
___/s/ Susan D. Wigenton_____
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.
Orig: Clerk
cc:
Parties
Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J.
2
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?