Cantrell v. Merchants & Professional Credit Bureau, Inc.

Filing 8

ORDER Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss contained in 7 Letter. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (klw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
MICHAEL CANTRELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL
CREDIT BUREAU, INC.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

1:16-CV-1003-RP

ORDER
Before the Court in the above-entitled matter is Defendant Merchants & Professional Credit
Bureau, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 7). After reviewing the pleadings, relevant law, and the
record in this case, the Court hereby issues the following Order.
I. Background
On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff Michael Cantrell filed a Complaint against Defendant
Merchants & Professional Credit Bureau, Inc. seeking damages pursuant to alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. (Dkt. 4). Defendant received service of process on August 30,
2016. (Dkt. 6). Accordingly, Defendant’s answer or otherwise responsive pleading was due on or
before September 20, 2016. On September 19, 2016, the Court received a Motion to Dismiss
submitted on Defendant’s behalf by Pam Winslett, Defendant’s executive vice president and chief
operating officer. (Dkt. 7).
II. Discussion
A corporation is not permitted to proceed pro se in federal court. See Rowland v. Calif. Men's
Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02, 113 S. Ct. 716, 121 L. Ed.2d 656 (1993) (noting that it has been the law
for almost two centuries that a corporation may only appear in federal court through licensed

counsel). 28 U.S.C. § 1654 provides that parties may choose to plead and conduct their own cases
personally or through counsel, but it “does not allow corporations, partnerships, or associations to
appear in federal court otherwise than through a licensed attorney.” Rowland, 506 U.S. at 202. This is
true even when the person seeking to represent the business is a president, major stockholder, or
other person having a close association with the corporation or partnership. In re K.M.A., Inc., 652
F.2d 398, 399 (5th Cir. 1981); Sw. Express Co., Inc. v. ICC, 670 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1982) (quoting
Turner v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 407 F. Supp. 451, 476 (1975) (“[T]he consistent interpretation of Section
1654 is that the only proper representative of a corporation or partnership is a licensed attorney . . .
regardless of how close his association with the corporation or partnership.”). When a corporation
declines to hire counsel to represent it, the court may properly dismiss its claims (if it is a plaintiff) or
strike its defenses (if it is a defendant). See Donovan v. Road Rangers Country Junction, Inc., 736 F.2d
1004, 1005 (5th Cir. 1984).
III. Conclusion
For the reasons described above, the Court hereby DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Defendant Merchants & Professional Credit Bureau, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. 7), and
ORDERS Defendant to obtain legal counsel within twenty (20) days of the entry of this Order.
The Court further ORDERS the District Clerk for the Western District of Texas to mail a copy of
this Order to Defendant at the address indicated in the above-mentioned Motion to Dismiss.
SIGNED on September 20, 2016.

_____________________________________
ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE