Proactive Dealer Solutions, LLC v. Richards et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Strike 7 Amended Answer to Complaint, 4 Answer to Complaint; FURTHER ORDERED that the Case Management Order filed on May 3, 2017 (Doc. No. 6) is STAYED until the corporate Defendant retains counsel in this matter and such counsel files an Answer. Counsel Shall file answer on or before October 2, 2017. Defendant Richards Answer due October 2, 2017. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 8/3/2017. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:17-cv-111-FDW-DCK
PROACTIVE
LLC,

DEALER

SOLUTIONS, )
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
REID V. RICHARDS and INCREASE
)
YOUR LEADS, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’
Amended Answer and Counterclaim. (Doc. No. 8). For the reasons set forth below, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
It appears to the Court that the corporate Defendant has not retained counsel in this case
but instead has had their employee and co-defendant, Reid V. Richard, jointly file a pro se Answer
and pro se Amended Answer on their behalf. This is not permitted under North Carolina law.
“[I]n North Carolina a corporation [including an LLC] must be represented by a duly admitted
and licensed attorney-at-law . . . .” Dungan & Mitchell, P.A. v. Dillingham Const. Co., Inc., 608
S.E.2d 415 (N.C.App. 2005) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Indeed, “[i]t 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, 201-02 (1993).
Accord Gilley v. Shoffner, 345 F. Supp. 2d 563, 566 (M.D.N.C. 2004) (dismissing Complaint of
pro se corporate plaintiff); Microsoft Corp. V. Computer Serv. & Repair, Inc., 312 F. Supp. 2d
779, 780 (E.D.N.C. 2004) (same); and Lexis-Nexis v. TraviShan Corp., 155 N.C. App. 205, 208,

573 S.E.2d 547, 549 (2002) (same).1 Therefore, the Court will STRIKE the Answer (Doc. No.
4) filed on March 29, 2017, and STRIKE the Amended Answer (Doc. No. 7) filed on June 15,
2017; STAY the Case Management Order entered on May 3, 2017 (Doc. No. 6) and direct that
the corporate Defendant retain counsel within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Counsel
for Defendant Increase Your Leads, LLC, shall file an Answer in this case no later than October
2, 2017. Defendant Richards shall file his Answer on or before October 2, 2017. If Defendant
Increase Your Leads, LLC, does not retain counsel, the Court will entertain a Motion for Default
by Plaintiff.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED;
(2) The Answer filed on March 29, 2017 (Doc. No. 4) and the Amended Answer filed on
June 15, 2017 (Doc. No. 7) are STRICKEN;
(3) The Case Management Order filed on May 3, 2017 (Doc. No. 6) is STAYED until the
corporate Defendant retains counsel in this matter and such counsel files an Answer;
(4) The corporate Defendant has thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to retain
counsel. Counsel shall file an Answer in this case on or before October 2, 2017;
(5) Defendant Richards shall file his Answer on or before October 2, 2017.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 3, 2017

1

While recognizing that unpublished opinions have no precedential value, the Court notes that the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals has affirmed the entry of default judgment against a pro se corporate defendant that failed to retain
counsel. Allied Colloids, Inc. v. Jadair, Inc., 139 F.3d 887 (4th Cir. 1998) (“almost every court to address this issue
has held that a corporation may not appear pro se but must be represented by duly licensed counsel”).