Austin v. Mobifyi, LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Tennessee
• Decided: July 27, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02285
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

ARON J. AUSTIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 2:20-cv-02285-TLP-tmp v. ) ) JURY DEMAND MOBIFYI, LLC and 3 EMBED ) SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES, PVT. ) LTD., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff sued pro se alleging claims for breach of contract and negligence against Defendants Mobifyi, LLC (“Mobify”) and 3 Embed Software Technologies, Pvt. Ltd. (ECF No 1.) Mr. Shalini Joshi, who identifies himself as the registered agent of Mobifyi, filed a pro se motion on behalf of Mobifyi to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. (ECF No. 10.) The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny the motion to dismiss without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1654. (ECF No. 12 at PageID 154–55.) For the reasons below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. I. The Magistrate Judge’s Findings The Magistrate Judge found that 28 U.S.C. § 1654 “generally prohibits non-lawyers from representing other persons other than themselves in federal court.” (Id. at PageID 155) (citing Olagues v. Timken, 908 F.3d 200, 203 (6th Cir. 2018)). Due to this prohibition, the Magistrate Judge further explained that business organizations, including LLCs, cannot appear pro se in federal court. (Id.) (citing Olagues, 908 F.3d at 203; Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993); Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 2007); Last Minute Cuts, LLC v. Biddle, No. 18-2631-MSN-tmp, 2019 WL 6222280, at

*2 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 18, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 6219544 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 21, 2019); GCA Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Parcou, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-02251, 2016 WL 9307505, at*1 (W.D. Tenn. June 6, 2016)). Thus, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without prejudice. II. Disposition Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), “[w]ithin 14 days of being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Neither party objected to the R&R, and the time for filing objections has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2), 6(d), 72(b)(2). “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. Thus, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. SO ORDERED, this 27th day of July, 2020. s/Thomas L. Parker THOMAS L. PARKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE