Brown et al v. Rios et al

Filing 4

ORDER denying without prejudice 3 Motion for TRO. TAKE NOTICE that a hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction shall take place on Monday, December 2, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom #5B of the Charles R. Jonas Federal Building, 401 W. Trade Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. Signed by District Judge Frank D. Whitney on 11/21/24. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:24-CV-01019-FDW-DCK
HAIOPS LLC,
FINCOSA LLC, AND
MICHAEL BROWN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
LOCALREMIX LLC,
ROBERTO DAVID RIOS,
WEBMATRIX360 LLC, AND
RODOLFO D. RIOS,
Defendants.

NOTICE AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, (Doc. No. 3). After careful consideration, Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order is DENIED. The Court will DEFER ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Preliminary Injunction until after a hearing on the Motion.
Based on a review of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Motion, Plaintiffs and Defendants had a
business relationship until approximately December of 2023. (Doc. No. 1, p. 4.) Thereafter, the
parties began negotiating how to separate their interests in the business. (Id., pp. 5–6.) Those
negotiations appear to have broken down, and Plaintiffs allege Defendants recently “disabled all
billing systems and revoked access to critical billing accounts” for HaiOps LLC, which also
impacts Fincosa LLC. (Doc. No. 3, p. 5.) Plaintiffs argue a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction are necessary to “protect thousands of customers who rely on Plaintiffs’
impacted business critical services,” such as phone lines, email service, and text messaging. (Id.,
1

pp. 5–6.) Plaintiffs allege this is damaging Plaintiffs and their customers because revenue
collection has ceased, critical services are failing, and customer trust faces irreparable damage.
(Id., p. 11.)
Plaintiffs have not complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
65(b), therefore a Temporary Restraining Order is inappropriate. The Court may issue a TRO
without notice only where “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give
notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). Based on a
review of the record, Plaintiffs’ pleadings contain no such certification. Further, while Plaintiffs’
arguments are not without merit, the Court finds a TRO is not otherwise appropriate at this time.
The Court will instead hear argument only on the preliminary injunction.
Further, the Court notes Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit pro se. While Plaintiff Michael Brown
may represent himself, corporate entities must be represented by counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1654
authorizes parties to “plead and conduct their own cases personally.” However, corporate and other
artificial entities must be represented by legal counsel in federal court. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s
Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) (“[T]he lower courts have
uniformly held that 28 U.S.C. § 1654 . . . does not allow corporations, partnerships, or associations
to appear in federal court otherwise than through a licensed attorney.”). This rule applies to limited
liability companies. See JTH Tax LLC v. Gause, No. 3:21-cv-00543-FDW-DCK, 2023 WL
2352938, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2023) (concluding default judgment was appropriate against
LLC that failed to secure counsel at the court’s direction); Electric Guard Dog, LLC v. Fence
Hawk, Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 548, 551 (concluding unrepresented LLC failing to secure counsel
before a hearing warranted civil contempt). For this reason, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiffs HaiOps

2

LLC and Fincosa LLC to secure counsel as soon as practicable, and in any event before any hearing
on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, (Doc. No. 3), is DENIED IN PART without
prejudice, to the extent it seeks a temporary restraining order, and the Court DEFERS IN PART
a ruling on the Motion to the extent it seeks preliminary injunctive relief.
TAKE NOTICE that a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction shall
take place on Monday, December 2, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom #5B of the Charles R. Jonas
Federal Building, 401 W. Trade Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. At the hearing, each side shall
have thirty (30) minutes for a brief presentation of critical evidence and argument. As Defendants
have not yet entered an appearance, Plaintiffs are directed to serve Defendants with a copy of this
Order, immediately. If Plaintiffs HaiOps LLC and Fincosa LLC have not secured counsel by
December 2, 2024, the Court may continue the hearing until they have done so.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: November 21, 2024

3