Corporate Recoveries Inc v. Hill

Opinion

The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

NO. 24-cv-1746-BJR CORPORATE RECOVERIES, INC., ORDER RETURNING DOCUMENTS Plaintiff, AND EXTENDING TIME TO v. DAVID HILL, et al., Defendants.

The Court has received documents from Scott Carey, Registered Agent of Corporate Recoveries, Inc.1 Mr. Carey is not an attorney who has been admitted to practice before this Court. Corporate Recoveries has previously been advised that as a corporate entity, it is required by law to be represented by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court. See ECF Nos. 21, 26. In his letter to the Court, Mr. Carey states that Corporate Recoveries is close to having new counsel appear to defend it against Defendants’ Counterclaim in this case and asks the Court to accept its filings pending an appearance. However, Corporate Recoveries may not proceed pro se as it is a corporation. See, e.g., Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a

1 The documents are attached to this Order as exhibits.

corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.”); In re America West Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”); also see Local Rule 83.2(b)(4) (“A business entity, except a sole proprietorship, must be represented by counsel.”). The attached documents are not accepted as properly filed in this case and are being returned. Under the circumstances, the Court hereby extends the time for Corporate Recoveries Inc. to respond to Defendants’ Counterclaim, ECF No. 25. Its Answer is now due on or before February 7, 2025. DATED this 7th day of January 2025. A B arbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge