J&S Welding, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al

Filing 19

ORDER GRANTING COUNSEL'S SECOND MOTION TO WITHDRAW 14 15 . Attorney Toby Gammill terminated. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 9/16/22. (skc)

Case 1:22-cv-01122-STA-jay Document 19 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 2

PageID 292

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
J&S WELDING, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
No. 1:22-cv-1122-STA-jay
)
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
)
COMPANY and WEST AMERICAN
)
INSURANCE COMPANY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING COUNSEL’S SECOND MOTION TO WITHDRAW
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is Toby Gammill and the Gammill Law Group’s Second Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff (ECF No. 14). Counsel has also filed a Motion for Status
Conference (ECF No. 15) and the supplement (ECF No. 18) as required by the Court. Counsel
requests that they be given first priority lien for reimbursement of litigation expenses. The Court
finds that the Motion is well-taken and should be GRANTED. Accordingly, Toby Gammill and
the Gammill Law Group are released from further representation of Plaintiff.
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to: Beau Eddings, 2579
North 9th Avenue, Humboldt, Tennessee 38343. Counsel is also DIRECTED to provide a copy
of this order to his former client. The Motion represents that Mr. Eddings is an individual doing
business as J&S Welding, Inc. Mr. Eddings is advised that as a corporation, J&S Welding, Inc.
cannot represent itself in federal court and must therefore retain new counsel. The United States
Supreme Court has remarked that “[i]t has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that
a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel” and added that “the
1

Case 1:22-cv-01122-STA-jay Document 19 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 2

PageID 293

rationale for that rule applies equally to all artificial entities.” Rowland v. Calif. Men’s Colony,
506 U.S. 194, 201–202 (1993). Because Plaintiff is a corporation, it lacks standing to press its
claims in this action without counsel. Therefore, the Court will give Plaintiff 28 days in which to
retain new counsel and have new counsel file a notice of appearance on Plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff
is cautioned that this action cannot proceed until Plaintiff has found new counsel. The Court
further cautions Plaintiff that failure to have new counsel in place within 28 days may result in the
dismissal of the case for lack of standing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: September 16, 2022

2