Bakari Logistics, LLC v. Progressive Corporation

N.D. Ohio

Bakari Logistics, LLC v. Progressive Corporation

DecidedJanuary 26, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-02199

StatusUnknown

This text of Bakari Logistics, LLC v. Progressive Corporation (Bakari Logistics, LLC v. Progressive Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bakari Logistics, LLC v. Progressive Corporation, (N.D. Ohio 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

BAKARI LOGISTICS, LLC, ) ) Case No. 1:23-cv-02199 Plaintiff, ) ) Judge Dan Aaron Polster v. ) ) OPINION AND ORDER PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Defendant.

Before the Court is Progressive Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Progressive”) motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. ECF Doc. 9. The Plaintiff is Catrell Bakari (“Mr. Bakari”), who appears pro se on behalf of his company, Bakari Logistics, LLC. ECF Doc. 6, PageID# 69. Progressive asserts three grounds for relief in its motion to dismiss, the first of which is that dismissal is warranted because the Plaintiff, a non-lawyer, cannot assert claims on behalf of a limited liability company in federal court. ECF Docs. 9; 9-1. The Defendant is correct. A corporation may not litigate a case pro se; it must have a lawyer represent it. See Lea v. Tracy Langston Ford, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 38710, at *6 (6th Cir. Dec. 30, 2019) (citing Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-03 (1993) (“A corporation, partnership, or association may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel and not through the pro se representation of an officer, agent, or shareholder.”)). Additionally, the Sixth Circuit has “consistently interpreted [28 U.S.C.] § 1654 as prohibiting pro se litigants from trying to assert the rights of others.” Olagues v. Timken, 908 F.3d 200, 203 (6th Cir. 2018). In other words, Bakari Logistics, LLC must be represented by counsel to participate in litigation in federal court. See Wise Man Brewing, LLC v. Three Bridges Distillery, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 33496, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2022) (dismissing a limited liability company’s appeal because it was unrepresented). Therefore, Mr. Bakari may not appear pro se on behalf of his company in this matter. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The first amended complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under the Defendant’s first ground for relief, and the Court need not address the remaining grounds for

relief. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: January 26, 2024 /s/ Dan Aaron Polster Dan Aaron Polster United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

BAKARI LOGISTICS, LLC, ) ) Case No. 1:23-cv-02199 Plaintiff, ) ) Judge Dan Aaron Polster v. ) ) OPINION AND ORDER PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Defendant.

Before the Court is Progressive Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Progressive”) motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. ECF Doc. 9. The Plaintiff is Catrell Bakari (“Mr. Bakari”), who appears pro se on behalf of his company, Bakari Logistics, LLC. ECF Doc. 6, PageID# 69. Progressive asserts three grounds for relief in its motion to dismiss, the first of which is that dismissal is warranted because the Plaintiff, a non-lawyer, cannot assert claims on behalf of a limited liability company in federal court. ECF Docs. 9; 9-1. The Defendant is correct. A corporation may not litigate a case pro se; it must have a lawyer represent it. See Lea v. Tracy Langston Ford, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 38710, at *6 (6th Cir. Dec. 30, 2019) (citing Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-03 (1993) (“A corporation, partnership, or association may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel and not through the pro se representation of an officer, agent, or shareholder.”)). Additionally, the Sixth Circuit has “consistently interpreted [28 U.S.C.] § 1654 as prohibiting pro se litigants from trying to assert the rights of others.” Olagues v. Timken, 908 F.3d 200, 203 (6th Cir. 2018). In other words, Bakari Logistics, LLC must be represented by counsel to participate in litigation in federal court. See Wise Man Brewing, LLC v. Three Bridges Distillery, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 33496, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2022) (dismissing a limited liability company’s appeal because it was unrepresented). Therefore, Mr. Bakari may not appear pro se on behalf of his company in this matter. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The first amended complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under the Defendant’s first ground for relief, and the Court need not address the remaining grounds for

relief. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: January 26, 2024 /s/ Dan Aaron Polster Dan Aaron Polster United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bakari Logistics, LLC v. Progressive Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bakari-logistics-llc-v-progressive-corporation-ohnd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack