Page v. Hutchinson

E.D. North Carolina

Page v. Hutchinson

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedJuly 3, 2025

Docket7:25-cv-00846

StatusUnknown

This text of Page v. Hutchinson (Page v. Hutchinson) 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

Page v. Hutchinson, (E.D.N.C. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:25-CV-846-BO-RJ

SHELTON PAGE and TAMARAH ) INVESTMENTS CORP., ) Plaintiffs, ) V. ORDER RUSSELL HUTCHINSON, ef ai. Defendants. )

This cause comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint. [DE 5]. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 provides that a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right within twenty-one days of serving it or within twenty-one days of service of a motion under Rule 12(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). The original complaint was filed on May 14, 2025, and the motion to amend was filed on May 22, 2025. Plaintiffs thus could have filed an amended complaint as of right, and no leave was required. However, as plaintiffs have sought leave to amend, the Court GRANTS the motion. [DE 5]. Plaintiffs shall file a signed copy of the amended complaint not later than July 14, 2025. In light of the foregoing, the motion to dismiss the original complaint filed by defendant Jacobson [DE I1] is DENIED without prejudice as MOOT. Defendants Russell Hutchinson’s and Ally Financial Bank’s time for filing an answer or otherwise responding to the complaint is hereby EXTENDED through and including August |, 2025. Additionally, the Court NOTIFIES plaintiffs that, whle an individual may appear for himself pro se, a business entity may not appear in this Court without duly licensed counsel. Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Counsel, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993); see

also RZS Holdings AVV v. PDVSA Petroleo S.A., 506 F.3d 350, 354 n.3 (4th Cir. 2007); Local Civil Rule 5.2(b)(2). Plaintiff Page does not appear to be an attorney licensed to practice in this district. Accordingly, plaintiff Tamarah Investments Corp. may not proceed in this action pro se or represented by plaintiff Page, unless Page demonstrates that he is a duly licensed attorney. Plaintiffs shall cure this deficiency by the time of filing of the amended complaint.

SO ORDERED, this 3 day of July 2025.

TERRENCE W. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:25-CV-846-BO-RJ

SHELTON PAGE and TAMARAH ) INVESTMENTS CORP., ) Plaintiffs, ) V. ORDER RUSSELL HUTCHINSON, ef ai. Defendants. )

This cause comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint. [DE 5]. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 provides that a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right within twenty-one days of serving it or within twenty-one days of service of a motion under Rule 12(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). The original complaint was filed on May 14, 2025, and the motion to amend was filed on May 22, 2025. Plaintiffs thus could have filed an amended complaint as of right, and no leave was required. However, as plaintiffs have sought leave to amend, the Court GRANTS the motion. [DE 5]. Plaintiffs shall file a signed copy of the amended complaint not later than July 14, 2025. In light of the foregoing, the motion to dismiss the original complaint filed by defendant Jacobson [DE I1] is DENIED without prejudice as MOOT. Defendants Russell Hutchinson’s and Ally Financial Bank’s time for filing an answer or otherwise responding to the complaint is hereby EXTENDED through and including August |, 2025. Additionally, the Court NOTIFIES plaintiffs that, whle an individual may appear for himself pro se, a business entity may not appear in this Court without duly licensed counsel. Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Counsel, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993); see

also RZS Holdings AVV v. PDVSA Petroleo S.A., 506 F.3d 350, 354 n.3 (4th Cir. 2007); Local Civil Rule 5.2(b)(2). Plaintiff Page does not appear to be an attorney licensed to practice in this district. Accordingly, plaintiff Tamarah Investments Corp. may not proceed in this action pro se or represented by plaintiff Page, unless Page demonstrates that he is a duly licensed attorney. Plaintiffs shall cure this deficiency by the time of filing of the amended complaint.

SO ORDERED, this 3 day of July 2025.

TERRENCE W. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Page v. Hutchinson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/page-v-hutchinson-nced-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack