UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT July 02, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
ILIYAS HAMEURLAINE, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-cv-3924 § ANTOINE BUSINESS, INC., § DANISH A. SIDDIQUI, AND § ASAAD AKHLAQUE SIDDIQUI, § § Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court1 is Plaintiff Iliyas Hameurlaine’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Strike Defendants’ General Denials (“Motion”). (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff is requesting the Court strike Defendant Antoine Business, Inc. (“Antoine Business), Danish A. Siddiqui (“D. Siddiqui”), and Asaad Akhlaque Siddiqui’s (“A. Siddiqui”) (collectively “Defendants”) Answers (ECF Nos. 16– 18), arguing they are impermissible general denials, in violation of the pleading requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8(b)(2). (ECF No. 20 at 2). As Defendants did not file a response, the “motion will be taken as representation of no opposition.” S.D. TEX. LOC. R. 7.4.
1 On March 31, 2025, this case was referred to the Undersigned for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 19). Based on a review of the Motion, arguments, and relevant law, the Court RECOMMENDS2 Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ General Denials
(ECF No. 20) be GRANTED, Defendants be ordered to file Answers in compliance with the Rules, and Antoine Business retain legal representation. I. Background On October 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and seeking unpaid straight-time and overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. (ECF No. 1 at 1). Summonses were issued and executed on all Defendants, as
evidenced by the returns filed in the record. (ECF Nos. 5, 7–8, 14). On February 5, 2025, D. Siddiqui, appearing pro se and who has not represented himself to be an attorney, filed an Answer on behalf of Antoine Business. (ECF Nos. 15–16).3 Antoine Business’s Answer simply states
“Defendant Antoine Business Inc. denies all claims and requests a jury trial.” (ECF No. 16). The same day, D. Siddiqui, appearing pro se, filed an Answer similarly stating, “Defendant Danish Siddiqui denies all claims and requests a
2 “Because granting the plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer would effectively be dispositive of the defenses asserted in the Defendant’s Answer and Defenses, pursuant to Rule 72(b)(1), FED. R. CIV. P., a report and recommendation is required.” Hamdan v. Tiger Bros. Food Mart, Inc., No. 15-cv-412, 2015 WL 13748541, at *1 n.1 (M.D. La. Dec. 3, 2015). 3 Defendant Antoine Business’s Answer in ECF No. 15 was docketed in error and re- filed as ECF No. 16. 2 jury trial.” (ECF No. 17). Lastly, A. Siddiqui, appearing pro se, filed the same one-sentence Answer denying all claims and requesting a jury trial. (ECF No.
18). Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants’ respective Answers as they (1) constitute an impermissible general denial in violation of Rule 8(b)(2)’s pleading requirements; and (2) because Antoine Business cannot proceed pro
se without being represented by a licensed attorney. (ECF No. 20 at 3). Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s Motion and have not filed any motions of their own. II. Legal Standard
General denials are prohibited in all but the most exceptional of cases. F.M.D. Holdings, LLC v. Regent Fin. Corp., No. 5:20-cv-269, 2021 WL 5883136, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2021) (citing Wright & Miller § 1265; FED. R. CIV. P. 8(b)(3)). Rule 8(b) requires that a defendant’s denial must “fairly respond to
the substance of the allegation” by either (1) admitting or denying the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party, or (2) stating that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation. SEC v. Kirchner, No. 4:23-cv-0147, 2023 WL 5322433, at *1 (N.D.
Tex. July 14, 2023) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(b)). “Rule 8 ensures that the plaintiff ‘is aware of the allegations in the complaint that the defendant admits
3 and those that he contests, so the plaintiff knows what he will need to prove at trial.’” Id. (quoting Wieck v. Synrg. Royce LLC, No. 17-cv-599, 2018 WL
3611880, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2018)). Moreover, while a pro se litigant’s petitions and pleadings are liberally construed, basic procedural pleading obligations still apply. F.M.D. Holdings, LLC, 2021 WL 5883136, at *7. “‘[P]ro se litigants must conform to the same
rules that are no doubt more easily understood by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Propes v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 2009)). “Assuming [defendants] intend to enter a general denial, the defendants’ boilerplate assertion that they deny each and every claim is woefully insufficient under
the Federal Rules, even for a pro se litigant.” Id. III. Discussion Plaintiff claims Defendants’ general denial of Plaintiff’s fifty-two separate allegations “falls well short of the pleading requirements set forth in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(2).” (ECF No. 20 at 2). The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Here, Defendants make a blanket assertion denying all claims. (ECF Nos. 16– 18). Such denial “in no way places Plaintiff on notice of which allegations in the Complaint Defendant[s] admit[] or contest[].” Kirchner, 2023 WL 5322433,
at *1. Likewise, Defendants’ Answers give no indication of what Plaintiff will need to prove at trial. Id. (citing Wieck, 2018 WL 6311880, at *1). Further,
4 Defendants have not given any indication of their position as they have not attached any exhibits to their Answers, have not responded to Plaintiff’s
Motion, nor have they contested any issues, such as jurisdiction, raised in the Complaint. Id. As such, Defendants’ general denials fail to satisfy Rule 8(b)’s pleading standard and should be stricken from the record. Additionally, Plaintiff moves to strike Antoine Business’s Answer
because it is signed by D. Siddiqui, a pro se Defendant who does not represent himself to be an attorney. (ECF No. 20 at 3). Plaintiff is correct that, in federal court, a corporation is not permitted to proceed pro se or be represented by a non-attorney. F.M.D. Holdings, LLC, 2021 WL 5883136, at *1, *6 (citing
Donovan v. Rd. Rangers Country Junction, Inc., 736 F.2d 1004, 1005 (5th Cir. 1984) (“The ‘clear’ rule is ‘that a corporation as a fictional legal person can only be represented by licensed counsel.’”)). Such holds true even when the person seeking to represent the corporation is its president and major stockholder. Id.
(citing In re K.M.A., 652 F.2d 398, 399 (5th Cir. 1982)). When faced with an unrepresented corporate defendant, a court may, in its discretion: (1) advise the corporation that it cannot proceed without counsel; (2) order the corporation to retain counsel by a certain deadline; (3) strike the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT July 02, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
ILIYAS HAMEURLAINE, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-cv-3924 § ANTOINE BUSINESS, INC., § DANISH A. SIDDIQUI, AND § ASAAD AKHLAQUE SIDDIQUI, § § Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court1 is Plaintiff Iliyas Hameurlaine’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Strike Defendants’ General Denials (“Motion”). (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff is requesting the Court strike Defendant Antoine Business, Inc. (“Antoine Business), Danish A. Siddiqui (“D. Siddiqui”), and Asaad Akhlaque Siddiqui’s (“A. Siddiqui”) (collectively “Defendants”) Answers (ECF Nos. 16– 18), arguing they are impermissible general denials, in violation of the pleading requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8(b)(2). (ECF No. 20 at 2). As Defendants did not file a response, the “motion will be taken as representation of no opposition.” S.D. TEX. LOC. R. 7.4.
1 On March 31, 2025, this case was referred to the Undersigned for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 19). Based on a review of the Motion, arguments, and relevant law, the Court RECOMMENDS2 Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ General Denials
(ECF No. 20) be GRANTED, Defendants be ordered to file Answers in compliance with the Rules, and Antoine Business retain legal representation. I. Background On October 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and seeking unpaid straight-time and overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. (ECF No. 1 at 1). Summonses were issued and executed on all Defendants, as
evidenced by the returns filed in the record. (ECF Nos. 5, 7–8, 14). On February 5, 2025, D. Siddiqui, appearing pro se and who has not represented himself to be an attorney, filed an Answer on behalf of Antoine Business. (ECF Nos. 15–16).3 Antoine Business’s Answer simply states
“Defendant Antoine Business Inc. denies all claims and requests a jury trial.” (ECF No. 16). The same day, D. Siddiqui, appearing pro se, filed an Answer similarly stating, “Defendant Danish Siddiqui denies all claims and requests a
2 “Because granting the plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer would effectively be dispositive of the defenses asserted in the Defendant’s Answer and Defenses, pursuant to Rule 72(b)(1), FED. R. CIV. P., a report and recommendation is required.” Hamdan v. Tiger Bros. Food Mart, Inc., No. 15-cv-412, 2015 WL 13748541, at *1 n.1 (M.D. La. Dec. 3, 2015). 3 Defendant Antoine Business’s Answer in ECF No. 15 was docketed in error and re- filed as ECF No. 16. 2 jury trial.” (ECF No. 17). Lastly, A. Siddiqui, appearing pro se, filed the same one-sentence Answer denying all claims and requesting a jury trial. (ECF No.
18). Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants’ respective Answers as they (1) constitute an impermissible general denial in violation of Rule 8(b)(2)’s pleading requirements; and (2) because Antoine Business cannot proceed pro
se without being represented by a licensed attorney. (ECF No. 20 at 3). Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s Motion and have not filed any motions of their own. II. Legal Standard
General denials are prohibited in all but the most exceptional of cases. F.M.D. Holdings, LLC v. Regent Fin. Corp., No. 5:20-cv-269, 2021 WL 5883136, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2021) (citing Wright & Miller § 1265; FED. R. CIV. P. 8(b)(3)). Rule 8(b) requires that a defendant’s denial must “fairly respond to
the substance of the allegation” by either (1) admitting or denying the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party, or (2) stating that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation. SEC v. Kirchner, No. 4:23-cv-0147, 2023 WL 5322433, at *1 (N.D.
Tex. July 14, 2023) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(b)). “Rule 8 ensures that the plaintiff ‘is aware of the allegations in the complaint that the defendant admits
3 and those that he contests, so the plaintiff knows what he will need to prove at trial.’” Id. (quoting Wieck v. Synrg. Royce LLC, No. 17-cv-599, 2018 WL
3611880, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2018)). Moreover, while a pro se litigant’s petitions and pleadings are liberally construed, basic procedural pleading obligations still apply. F.M.D. Holdings, LLC, 2021 WL 5883136, at *7. “‘[P]ro se litigants must conform to the same
rules that are no doubt more easily understood by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Propes v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 2009)). “Assuming [defendants] intend to enter a general denial, the defendants’ boilerplate assertion that they deny each and every claim is woefully insufficient under
the Federal Rules, even for a pro se litigant.” Id. III. Discussion Plaintiff claims Defendants’ general denial of Plaintiff’s fifty-two separate allegations “falls well short of the pleading requirements set forth in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(2).” (ECF No. 20 at 2). The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Here, Defendants make a blanket assertion denying all claims. (ECF Nos. 16– 18). Such denial “in no way places Plaintiff on notice of which allegations in the Complaint Defendant[s] admit[] or contest[].” Kirchner, 2023 WL 5322433,
at *1. Likewise, Defendants’ Answers give no indication of what Plaintiff will need to prove at trial. Id. (citing Wieck, 2018 WL 6311880, at *1). Further,
4 Defendants have not given any indication of their position as they have not attached any exhibits to their Answers, have not responded to Plaintiff’s
Motion, nor have they contested any issues, such as jurisdiction, raised in the Complaint. Id. As such, Defendants’ general denials fail to satisfy Rule 8(b)’s pleading standard and should be stricken from the record. Additionally, Plaintiff moves to strike Antoine Business’s Answer
because it is signed by D. Siddiqui, a pro se Defendant who does not represent himself to be an attorney. (ECF No. 20 at 3). Plaintiff is correct that, in federal court, a corporation is not permitted to proceed pro se or be represented by a non-attorney. F.M.D. Holdings, LLC, 2021 WL 5883136, at *1, *6 (citing
Donovan v. Rd. Rangers Country Junction, Inc., 736 F.2d 1004, 1005 (5th Cir. 1984) (“The ‘clear’ rule is ‘that a corporation as a fictional legal person can only be represented by licensed counsel.’”)). Such holds true even when the person seeking to represent the corporation is its president and major stockholder. Id.
(citing In re K.M.A., 652 F.2d 398, 399 (5th Cir. 1982)). When faced with an unrepresented corporate defendant, a court may, in its discretion: (1) advise the corporation that it cannot proceed without counsel; (2) order the corporation to retain counsel by a certain deadline; (3) strike the
corporation’s defenses if it refuses to hire counsel; or (4) order default judgment if the corporation fails, after being warned, to retain counsel. Id. (citing Memon
5 v. Allied Domecq QSR, 385 F.3d 871, 873 (5th Cir. 2004); Donovan, 736 F.2d at 1005); PalWeb Corp., Inc. v. Vimonta AG, No. 3:00-cv-1388, 2003 WL 21992488,
at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2003) (additional citations omitted)). As Antoine Business is a corporation without legal representation, and who cannot proceed pro se, the Court recommends its Answer (ECF Nos. 15– 16) be stricken from the record and Antoine Business obtain legal counsel.
IV. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 20) be GRANTED and Defendants’ Answers (ECF Nos. 15–18) be STRICKEN from the Record.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Antoine Business obtain legal representation and that, if this Memorandum and Recommendation is adopted, Defendants file Answers which comply with the Rules within fourteen (14) days of the adoption.
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
6 SIGNED in Houston, Texas on July 2, 2025.
Richard W. Bennett United States Magistrate Judge