Echols et al v. Davis et al

Filing 9

ORDER: Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order, Dft Davis Hallauer-fox a/k/a Hill Street Attorneys, P.C. shall have counsel make an appearance on its behalf. Failure to comply with this Order will result in the entry of default being made against this Dft. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 12/29/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (klb)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
BRYSON CITY DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 2:14-cv-00039-MR-DLH

RENZA ECHOLS and ELEANOR
ECHOLS,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TODD W. DAVIS and DAVIS &
)
HALLAUER-FOX, a/k/a HILL STREET )
ATTORNEYS, P.C.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte.
On September 12, 2014, the Plaintiffs initiated this action against
attorney Todd W. Davis (“Davis”) and his firm, Davis & Hallauer-fox a/k/a
Hill Street Attorneys, P.C. (“the Firm”), asserting claims for professional
negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation. [Doc. 1]. On October 17,
2014, an Answer was filed on behalf of both Defendants. [Doc. 4]. The
Answer is signed and verified by Defendant Todd W. Davis, but only in his
individual capacity.

Nothing in the Complaint indicates that Mr. Davis

represents the Firm in his professional capacity. The Certificate of Service
is signed by attorney K. Denise Hallauer-fox and indicates that Ms.

Hallauer-fox effected service of the Answer on the Plaintiffs’ counsel.
Further, Ms. Hallauer-fox submitted the Answer to the Clerk’s Office for
filing. [See Doc. 4-1]. In light of these activities, Ms. Hallauer-fox was
listed as counsel of record for both Defendants on the Court’s docket sheet.
On December 11, 2014, the Court received a letter from Ms.
Hallauer-fox, in which she states that she does not represent Mr. Davis or
the Firm in this matter. She further states that “[a]ny documents I may
have signed were signed merely as a member of the firm, Davis &
Hallauer-fox, PC. At this point, Mr. Davis is Pro Se and is unrepresented
by counsel.” [Doc. 8]. Ms. Hallauer-fox’s letter does not indicate whether
Mr. Davis intends to represent the Firm in this action.
In light of Ms. Hallauer-fox’s representations, it appears that both
Defendants are unrepresented in this matter.

While Mr. Davis may

proceed pro se, the Firm as a professional corporation may not proceed as
an unrepresented party in this matter.

See Gilley v. Shoffner, 345

F.Supp.2d 563, 567 (M.D.N.C. 2004). The Court will allow the Firm thirty
(30) days to retain counsel. If counsel does not make an appearance on
behalf of the Firm within thirty (30) days, the Court will direct that an entry
of default be made against this Defendant.

2

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the
entry of this Order, the Defendant Davis Hallauer-fox a/k/a Hill Street
Attorneys, P.C. shall have counsel make an appearance on its behalf.
Failure to comply with this Order will result in the entry of default being
made against this Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: December 29, 2014

3