From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Favors

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
Jan 24, 2011
4:10CV01595-BRW (E.D. Ark. Jan. 24, 2011)

Opinion

4:10CV01595-BRW.

January 24, 2011


ORDER


Mr. Davis may not represent Plaintiff Doctor's Testing Center LLC II ("Doctor's Testing") in federal court because he is not a licensed attorney. Accordingly, Mr. Davis is directed to obtain an attorney to represent Doctor's Testing within twenty days from the date of this Order. Defendants' pending motion 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.


Summaries of

Davis v. Favors

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
Jan 24, 2011
4:10CV01595-BRW (E.D. Ark. Jan. 24, 2011)
Case details for

Davis v. Favors

Case Details

Full title:RON DAVIS, et al. PLAINTIFFS v. REGINA FAVORS, et al. DEFENDANTS

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

Date published: Jan 24, 2011

Citations

4:10CV01595-BRW (E.D. Ark. Jan. 24, 2011)