Serefex Corporation v. Hickman Holdings, LP et al

Filing 143

ORDER Atty Gary K. Sue shall file either a notice of general appearance for Pltf Serefex Corporation, or a statement that he does not represent Pltf in this case on or before 5 business days from entry of this Order. FURTHER O RDERED Serefex Corporation may appear in this action through counsel or may request a short extension of time within which to obtain counsel on or before 5 business days from entry of this Order. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 5/24/12. (ejb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:11cv255

SEREFEX CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BILTMORE INVESTMENTS, LTD.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Order of United States
Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell [Doc. 140].
In this action, Attorney Gary K. Sue has filed two motions for admission
pro hac vice of certain out of state counsel [Doc. 129, 130], and a report
regarding the status of certain litigation pending in Bankruptcy Court. [Doc.
131]. In the motions for pro hac vice admission Attorney Sue avoids stating
that he will serve as local counsel for such out of state attorneys, and he
seeks admission of such other attorneys without local counsel. As such, it
does not appear that Attorney Sue has made a general appearance for the
Plaintiff in this matter. For that reason the Magistrate Judge entered the

Order of January 12, 2012 [Doc. 140] directing Attorney Sue to advise the
Court in writing of whether he will represent Plaintiff Serefex Corporation in
this action. [Id.]. To date, Mr. Sue has made no such filing and has failed to
respond to the Order of this Court in any manner. As a result, the Plaintiff
remains unrepresented in this action.
“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries ... that a
corporation may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel.”
Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202, 113 S.Ct. 716, 121
L.Ed.2d 656 (1993). When a corporate party has been “admonished ... that
if [it] failed to obtain ... counsel” the case would “be dismissed as to the
corporation[ ] ... since a corporation cannot proceed pro se,” it is appropriate
to dismiss the action as to that corporate party. Barr v. Prince George’s
County, Md., 115 F. App’x 609 (2004); Huang v. Culpepper, 2011 WL 310477
**2 n.1 (D.Md. 2011). Indeed, this principle has been upheld in numerous
cases. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. X Digital Media, Inc., 2009 WL
3614306 (E.D.N.C. 2009) (citing Plimpton v. Cooper, 141 F.Supp.2d 573, 575
(W.D.N.C. 2001), affirmed 21 F. App’x 159 (4 th Cir. 2001); Carrico v. Village
of Sugar Mountain, 114 F.Supp.2d 422, 424 (W.D.N.C. 2000), affirmed 13 F.
App’x 79 (4 th Cir. 2001)) (other citations omitted).
The Court will provide both Mr. Sue and Plaintiff Serefex Corporation
2

with an opportunity to respond as to the status of counsel, and for some
proper attorney to make an appearance for Plaintiff.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that on or before five (5) business days
from entry of this Order, Attorney Gary K. Sue shall file either a notice of
general appearance for Plaintiff Serefex Corporation, or a statement that he
does not represent Plaintiff in this case. Failure to comply with the directives
contained within this Order may subject counsel to sanctions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before five (5) business days
from entry of this Order, Serefex Corporation may appear in this action
through counsel or may request a short extension of time within which to
obtain counsel. Failure of the Plaintiff to obtain representation in this matter
may result in the dismissal of this action without further notice.
The Clerk of Court is instructed to serve a copy of this Order on the
Plaintiff by mail addressed to Serefex Corporation, c/o 21415 Civic Center
Drive, Suite 250, Southfield, MI 48076-3905.
Signed: May 24, 2012

3