Parker Products, Inc., et al. v. Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC, et al.

Filing 48

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 12/16/2011. A copy of the Order was mailed to the pro se plaintiff to her address of record. (Sawyer, D.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DMSION

No.5:09-CV-563-D

No.5:II-CV-570-D

IDLDA PARKER, and
PARKER PRODUCTS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,

v.
KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, LLC,
and KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On August 10,2010, plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss [D.E. 38]. On August 18,2010,
plaintiffs and defendants filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice [D.E. 39] and the clerk
closed the case. On August 12, 2011, plaintiffs Hilda Parker and Parker Products, Inc., filed a
motion for a 60-day extension of time to secure a new attorney and to file a complaint [D.E. 41].
On August 16, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to extend time to file a complaint until

October 18,2011, and stated that no further extensions oftime to file a complaint would be granted
[D.E.42]. On August 16,2011, plaintiffs' former counsel of record filed a notice of withdrawal
[D.E.43]. On August 25, 2011, defendants filed a motion for reconsideration concerning this
court's order of August 16,2011, and argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over
the action filed in 2009 [D.E. 44]. Plaintiffs did not respond to the motion for reconsideration.
On October 18,2011, instead of complying with this court's order, pro se plaintiff Hilda
Parker initiated a new civil action on behalf of herself and her company Parker Products, Inc., by
filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See 5:11-CV-570-D [D.E. 1]. In this new action,
Hilda Parker purports to represent herself and her company. On October 19,2011, plaintiffs filed

a proposed pro se complaint in the new civil action. Id. [D.E. 2]. The new civil action was
randomly assigned to Senior United States District Judge Fox. On November 3, 2011, the new civil
action was reassigned to the undersigned. Id. (D.E. 5]. The court has reviewed both cases. Both
complaints pertain to conduct that arose in 2005, 2006, and 2007, name the same plaintiffs, name
the same defendants, and essentially contain the same claims.
Parker has not retained counsel for Parker Products, Inc., in the 2011 case. "(T]he parties
may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel ...." 28 U.S.C. § 1654. The right
to conduct a case personally, however, does not extend to corporations, partnerships, or associations
in federal court. "(A] corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel."
Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506U.S. 194,202(1993); seeRZS
Holdings AVV v. PDVSA Petroleo S.A., 506 F.3d 350, 354 n.3 (4th Cir. 2007). Parker has had
ample time to retain counsel for Parker Products, Inc., and has failed to do. Thus, the court declines
to permit Hilda Parker to represent Parker Products, Inc., in the 2011 case, and Parker Products, Inc.,
is dismissed as a plaintiff.
As for defendants' motion for reconsideration [D.E. 44], the motion is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part. Specifically, the 2009 case is DISMISSED. Moreover, plaintiff Hilda Parker
is ORDERED to show cause by January 2, 2012, why this court should not dismiss the 2011 action
as time-barred and as claim precluded. Defendants may respond in accordance with the local rules.
Ifplaintiff Hilda Parker fails to comply with this order, the court will dismiss the 2011 action with
prejudice.
SO ORDERED. This J1a. day ofDecember 2011.

2