The Filta Group Inc v Van Elzen, et al.

Filing 8

ORDER denying 6 Motion to Strike; signed by Judge William C Griesbach on 02/15/2012. (cc: all counsel, via US mail to Gregory Van Elzen) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
THE FILTA GROUP INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-C-1168

GREGORY M VAN ELZEN and
B&R MANAGEMENT LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

This is an action for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract
arising out of the defendant’s alleged continued use of the plaintiff’s trademarks and service marks
in the operation of a fryer management services business following the termination of the parties
franchise agreement. The defendants are Gregory M. Van Elzen and B&R Management, LLC. The
Complaint was filed on December 23, 2011, and on January 23, 2012 Defendant Gregory M.
Van Elzen filed a pro se answer to the complaint. On February 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to
strike the answer as it pertains to B&R Management LLC on the ground that Van Elzen, being a
non-lawyer, may not appear on behalf of the LLC.
In support of his motion, plaintiff relies upon the local rules of the district which
specifically state that only natural persons are allowed to appear pro se. “Legal entities, such as
corporations, partnerships, unincorporated associations, limited liability companies, or trusts, must
be represented by legal counsel.” Gen. L.R. Civil 83. The Local Rule reflects the law of the

circuit. See United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d, 579, 581-82 (7th Cir. 2008)(holding that a
limited liability company, like a corporation, cannot litigate in federal court unless it is represented
by a lawyer).
That rule would be applicable here if Van Elzen had in fact filed an answer on behalf of
B&R. But it does not appear that he did. The answer filed by Van Elzen does not purport to be
an answer on behalf of the LLC. It is signed by Van Elzen without any indication that his signature
is other than in his personal capacity. It thus appears that no answer has been filed by B&R, and
plaintiff’s motion to strike such an answer will therefore be denied. I note that plaintiff has filed
an amended complaint contemporaneous with the motion to strike. Accordingly, if B&R intends
to contest plaintiff’s claims against it, it will have to retain counsel and file a response to the
amended complaint within the time allowed. Van Elzen personally, however, is free to file his own
answer to the amended complaint.
SO ORDERED this

15th

day of February, 2012.

s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach
United States District Judge

2