Murdock Ready Mixed Concrete Company v. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (America) Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina
DecidedApril 2, 2025
Docket5:24-cv-00278
StatusUnknown

This text of Murdock Ready Mixed Concrete Company v. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (America) Inc. (Murdock Ready Mixed Concrete Company v. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (America) Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Murdock Ready Mixed Concrete Company v. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (America) Inc., (E.D.N.C. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:24-cv-00278-M-BM MURDOCK READY MIXED CONCRETE COMPANY, Plaintiff, ORDER Vv. RITCHIE BROS. AUCTIONEERS (AMERICA) INC., et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint [DE 20], Motion to Continue [DE 24], Motion to Stay [DE 25], and Motion to Submit Audio Clips [DE 33]. The court declines to consider the merits of the pending motions as they are improperly before the court. Plaintiff, a corporate entity, has filed a notice of self-representation and thus far proceeded pro se. [DE 3]. “[A] corporation may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Counsil, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993); see also Allied Colloids, Inc. v. Jadair, Inc., 139 F.3d 887 (Table), 1998 WL 112719, at *1 (4th Cir. 1998) (affirming the rejection of a pro se corporate defendant’s answer). Courts in this circuit have routinely found that a corporate parties’ failure to obtain counsel may warrant adverse action, including the dismissal of its claims without prejudice. See Dusange-Hayer v. Karnalyte Res., Inc., No. 2:15-4341, 2016 WL 5334682, at *3 (D.S.C. July 29, 2016) (dismissing a corporate plaintiff without prejudice because it failed to obtain counsel); Tailored Chem. Products, Inc. v. Dafco Inc., No. 5:21-CV-00069, 2022 WL 18401011, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 20,

2022) (finding that a corporate defendant’s failure to retain licensed counsel may subject it to default judgment). The pending motions are not properly before the court, so they are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further, Plaintiff is ORDERED to retain counsel and provide the court with appropriate notice of the same on or before May 2, 2025. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of its claims without prejudice.

SO ORDERED this gt __ day of April, 2025. (aed /V\ yous" é SO RICHARD E. MYERS fi CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Murdock Ready Mixed Concrete Company v. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (America) Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murdock-ready-mixed-concrete-company-v-ritchie-bros-auctioneers-america-nced-2025.