Renaissance Learning, Inc. v. IntraData, Inc.

Filing 11

ORDER striking 9 Motion to Dismiss. Defendant may have until January 23, 2015, to properly respond to plaintiff Renaissance Learning, Inc.'s motion for entry of default. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 1/9/15. (jat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

RENAISSANCE LEARNING, INC.,

v.

Plaintiff,

ORDER
14-cv-738-jdp

INTRADATA, INC.,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Renaissance Learning, Inc. develops and sells educational products such as
Accelerated Reader, Accelerated Vocabulary, Accelerated Math, and Accelerated Writer.
Renaissance has registered the mark “AR” to refer to its products and the mark “ATOS” as the
name for its reading level scoring system. Renaissance alleges that defendant IntraData, Inc. has
developed and sold a competing product—Read ‘N Quiz—that utilizes Renaissance’s proprietary
ATOS method for assessing the readability level of text. Renaissance brought suit against
IntraData, alleging claims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1) and 1125(a), and under
Wisconsin law. This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1367 because Renaissance’s Lanham Act claims arise under federal law, and because the
remaining state law claims are part of the same case or controversy.
IntraData attempted to answer Renaissance’s complaint. Dkt. 5. But the document was
signed by the company’s president, John Switzer, who does not appear to be a licensed attorney
in Washington, where Intra is incorporated and located, or in any other state. The problem with
IntraData’s filing is that “a corporation . . . is legally incapable of appearing in court unless
represented by counsel—corporations must appear by counsel or not at all.” Philos Techs., Inc. v.
Philos & D, Inc., 645 F.3d 851, 857-58 (7th Cir. 2011). Relying on this principle, Renaissance
moved the court to enter default because IntraData had failed to timely file a legally sufficient

answer or motion to dismiss. Dkt. 6. The court permitted IntraData to respond to the motion,
but warned that “only a licensed attorney may file a response.” Dkt. 8.
IntraData did respond, this time with a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 9. The motion simply
describes why IntraData does not think Renaissance’s suit is fair, but it fails to explain why the
court should not enter default. Moreover, without explanation, the document is again signed by
Mr. Switzer, and the signature block indicates that IntraData is proceeding pro se. Regardless of
its merits, the motion is a legal nullity, and the court will therefore strike the motion and the
briefing schedule triggered automatically by the court’s ECF system.
IntraData has so far failed to plead or otherwise respond to Renaissance’s complaint, but
the court will give IntraData one last chance to defend itself in this lawsuit. Lest there be any
confusion: the court will not accept any submission from IntraData unless the filing is signed by
a licensed attorney who is admitted to practice before this court (or who simultaneously moves
for admission pro hac vice); documents signed by Mr. Switzer are not legally sufficient. IntraData
has 14 days from the date of this order to oppose Renaissance’s motion for default. If IntraData
fails to meet this deadline, the court will enter default. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendant IntraData, Inc.’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 9, is STRICKEN.
2. Defendant may have until January 23, 2015, to properly respond to plaintiff
Renaissance Learning, Inc.’s motion for entry of default, Dkt. 6.
3. If defendant fails to respond, the court will enter default.
4. The clerk of court is directed to mail a copy of this order to defendant.
Entered January 9, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2