Opinion
4:10CV1560-BRW, 4:10CV1607-BRW, 4:10CV1608-BRW, 4:10CV1609-BRW, 4:10CV1610-BRW, 4:10CV1611-BRW.
January 24, 2011
ORDER
Pending are Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration of my orders denying his motions to remand these related cases to state court. I see no reason to hold a hearing on this matter, and the Motions are hereby DENIED.
Doc. Nos. 17, 20, 19, 19, 17, and 19, respectively.
In the event that his Motions for Reconsideration are denied, Plaintiff requests a sixty-day "delay . . . [for] the filing of a pleading to address the Complaint and to substitute Council [sic] for the presentation of a more comprehensive Pleading." Although I deny his request for a sixty-day delay, Plaintiff raises a good point. Even though he is a part-owner in Plaintiff Doctor's Testing Center LLC II ("Doctor's Testing"), Mr. Davis may not represent Doctor's Testing in federal court because he is not a licensed attorney. Mr. Davis is directed to obtain an attorney to represent Doctor's Testing within twenty days from the date of this Order. Defendants' pending motions to dismiss and consolidate, and request for a stay of Rule 26 conference, will be granted unless within twenty days a lawyer moves for additional time to respond.
28 U.S.C. § 1654; Ackra Direct Marketing Corp. V. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 857 (8th Cir. 1996) ("the law does not allow a corporation to proceed pro se"); Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that LLC could appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney, regardless of fact that LLC had sole member and that its sole member sought to represent it).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of January, 2011.