Filing 28

ORDER recommending pltf. AXACT to proceed expeditiously in locating licensed NJ counsel, or else risk being subject to default judgment on certain claims Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 5/2/2008. (ss, )

Download PDF
AXACT (PVT.), LTD. v. STUDENT NETWORK RESOURCES, INC. et al Doc. 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ( 6 0 9 ) 989-2182 C h a m b e r s of FREDA L. W O L F S O N U n i t e d States District Judge C l a r k s o n S. Fisher Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 4 0 2 East State Street T r e n t o n , New Jersey 08608 May 2, 2008 Fahimul Karim Sarwat Legal Department Axact Pvt Ltd. Axact House, Axact Street, Main Khayaban-e-ltthad, Phase-VII DHA, Karachi, Pakistan Peter L. Skolnik, Esq. Lowestein Sandler, PC 65 Livingston Avenue Roseland, New Jersey 07068 Re: Axact v. Student Network Resources Civil Action No. 07-5491(FLW) Dear Mr. Sarwat and Mr. Skolnik: I received Mr. Sarwat letter, dated April 29, 2008, requesting to proceed pro se on behalf of Axact in this matter. However, it is well-established law that artificial entities such as corporations, partnerships and associations may only appear in the federal courts of the United States through licensed counsel. See Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993)("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. As the courts have recognized, the rationale for that rule applies equally to all artificial entities"); see also United States v. Cocivera, 104 F.3d 566 (3d Cir. 1996); Simbraw, Inc. v. United States, 367 F.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1966); Harrison v. Wahatoyas, L.L.C., 253 F.3d 552, 556 (10 Cir. 2001)("As a general matter, a corporation or other business entity can only appear in court through an attorney and not a non-attorney corporate officer appearing pro se"). Accordingly, Mr. Sarwat's request is denied. Moreover, the Court entered an Order on April 4, 2008 dismissing Axact's complaint without prejudice. This means that the complaint can be re-instated, but Axact must secure a licensed attorney to pursue its claims in this court. Additionally, Axact requires a licensed attorney to defend against the counterclaims that remain pending against Axact in this matter. I recommend that Axact proceed expeditiously in locating licensed New Jersey counsel, or else Axact risks being subject to default judgement on those claims. Sincerely, /s/ Freda L. Wolfson Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J.

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?