Bates v. Vandroff et al

Filing 104

The Court will construe Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 98 ) as a Motion for Entry of Default, which is GRANTED as to Defendant ELI Solutions, LLC, and DENIED as to Defendant Sylvia Vandroff. Also pendin g is Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 100 ) in which he seeks a determination of liability and damages. Plaintiff shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order to provide any and all supplemental briefing and/or additi onal evidence in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment. Thereafter, Defendant Sylvia Vandroff shall have thirty-four (34) days to file a response to Plaintiff's Motion. Briefing/Evidence due by plaintiff on or before January 22, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 01/07/2020.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-vs)
)
)
SYLVIA TAWANDA VANDROFF,
)
TRINA CLARKSON, MAROLYN D.
)
VANDROFF, ELIZABETH KINDER,
)
SHARDICE SHARP, BRENDA
)
ROBINSON, KYLEE MARTIN,
)
ANOTHER CHANCE PUBLISHING,
)
ELI SOLUTIONS, LLC, and ANOTHER )
CHANCE TO BRIDGE THE GAP,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
KENNETH RAY BATES,

I.

Civil Action No.: 4:17-cv-1838-SAL-TER

ORDER

INTRODUCTION
In this action, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, alleges a claim for breach of contract. He

asserts that Defendants breached a contract with him by selling his personal writings without his
permission and without providing him with any compensation. Presently before the Court is
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 98) as to Defendants Sylvia Tawanda Vandroff
and ELI Solutions, LLC.1 All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), DSC.
II.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The procedural history of this case from the time it was filed until March of 2019 is set forth
1

An entry of default has already been made as to Defendant Marolyn D. Vandroff. See
ECF Nos. 72-73. Defendants Kinder, Robinson, Clarkson, Sharp, Martin, and Another Chance
Publishing have been dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). See ECF No.
72.

in the undersigned’s previous Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 63). As stated above in
footnote 1, An entry of default has been made as to Defendant Marolyn D. Vandroff, and Defendants
Kinder, Robinson, Clarkson, Sharp, Martin, and Another Chance Publishing have been dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Defendants Sylvia Vandroff and ELI Solutions,
LLC were served on May 3, 2019. Summonses Returned Executed (ECF Nos. 77-78). On May 28,
2019, an Answer (ECF No. 79) was filed pro se by Sylvia Vandroff on behalf of herself and ELI
Solutions, LLC. The court entered an Order (ECF No. 82) notifying Defendants that ELI Solutions,
LLC could not appear pro se and must retain counsel to proceed. The court directed Defendant ELI
Solutions, LLC to obtain counsel and file a notice of appearance within thirty days. ELI Solutions,
LLC failed to retain counsel and the court entered a second Order (ECF No. 94) striking the answer
as to it. The order noted that “the answer continues to be a filing on behalf of Sylvia Tawanda
Vandroff.” Id.
III.

DISCUSSION
In his motion, Plaintiff argues that default judgment is appropriate as to both ELI Solutions,

LLC and Sylvia Vandroff because Vandroff failed to abide by the court’s order to retain counsel for
ELI Solutions, LLC. However, a determination of damages is not appropriate at this time as Plaintiff
did not submit with this motion any evidence to support a claim for damages. Therefore, the court
will treat Plaintiff’s motion as one for a request for entry of default against ELI Solutions, LLC, and
Sylvia Vandroff.
It has been the law for the better part of two centuries ... that a corporation may
appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel. As the courts have
recognized, the rationale for that rule applies equally to all artificial entities. Thus,
... the lower courts have uniformly held that 28 U.S.C. § 1654, providing that “parties
may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel,” does not allow
-2-

corporations, partnerships, or associations to appear in federal court otherwise than
through a licensed attorney.
Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993)
(internal citations omitted). Likewise, limited liability companies cannot proceed pro se in federal
court. In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 290 n.17 (4th Cir. 2014); see also Local Civ. Rule 83.I.07(B)
(D.S.C.) (providing that legal entities “may not proceed without counsel”). Because ELI Solutions,
LLC has not retained counsel and the answer filed on its behalf has been stricken, an entry of default
is appropriate as to ELI Solutions, LLC. See, e,g,, Belk v. Rock Haven Community Care Home, Inc.,
No. 3:07-54-CMC-BM, 2007 WL 2152902, *2 (D.S.C. July 25, 2007) (granting default against
corporate defendant in spite of pro se answer to complaint after the defendant failed to obtain counsel
upon direction by the court to do so).
There is no restriction against Sylvia Vandroff representing herself in this action, and, as set
forth above, she timely filed an answer. Plaintiff appears to seek default judgment against her as
a sanction for failure to abide by the court’s order directing ELI Solutions, LLC to retain counsel.
However, Plaintiff has failed to show that Sylvia Vandroff, in her individual capacity, should be
liable for ELI Solutions, LLC’s actions or inactions. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied
as to Sylvia Vandroff.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the court will construe Plaintiff’s Motion for Default

Judgment (ECF No. 98) as a Motion for Entry of Default, which is GRANTED as to Defendant ELI
Solutions, LLC and DENIED as to Defendant Sylvia Vandroff. Also pending is Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 100) in which he seeks a determination of liability and damages.

-3-

Plaintiff shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order to provide any and all
supplemental briefing and/or additional evidence in support of his Motion for Summary
Judgment. Thereafter, Defendant Sylvia Vandroff shall have thirty-four (34) days to file a
response to Plaintiff’s Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
January 7, 2020
Florence, South Carolina

-4-