Plantations Legal Defense Services, Inc. v. Grande

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Plantations Legal Defense Services, Inc. v. Grande

403 A.2d 1084, 121 R.I. 875, 1979 R.I. LEXIS 2034

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJuly 17, 1979

Docket76-69-Appeal

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 403 A.2d 1084 (Plantations Legal Defense Services, Inc. v. Grande) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Plantations Legal Defense Services, Inc. v. Grande, 403 A.2d 1084, 121 R.I. 875, 1979 R.I. LEXIS 2034 (R.I. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

*876 Per Curiam.

This is an appeal in a civil action brought by the plaintiff following the refusal, of a Superior Court justice to issue a writ of mandamus. The record indicates that the plaintiff initiated, through its attorney, an action in Small Claims Court to recover $80 for legal services rendered. On the two occasions when the case was called for a hearing, however, the plaintiff was represented by a corporate officer who was not licensed to practice law in this state. Prior to each hearing the officer present requested a default judgment in the plaintiffs favor. Nevertheless, the clerk of the court refused to mark the case ready for a hearing, and the court refused to order a default judgment. The plaintiff then sought a writ of mandamus in the Superior Court to command issuance of a default judgment.

The issue on appeal is whether the trial justice erred when he denied plaintiff s request for mandamus and held that the corporation was not entitled to be represented in Small Claims Court by a non-attorney corporate officer. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a writ of mandamus will issue only where the plaintiffs have a clear legal right to have the act done that is sought by the writ, where the defendants have a ministerial, legal duty to perform such act without discretion to refuse and where the plaintiffs have no plain or adequate remedy at law. Daluz v. Hawksley, 116 R.I. 49, 52, 351 A.2d 820, 822 (1976); Demers v. Adamson, 102 R.I. 453, 456, 231 A.2d 484, 485 (1967); Aniello v. Marcello, 91 R.I. 198, 202-03, 162 A.2d 270, 272 (1960). Thus, plaintiff was required to fulfill these conditions precedent before the writ of mandamus could be issued.

In the instant case we are of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to show that it has a clear legal right to the relief sought in light of the well-established principle that a corporation may be represented only by licensed counsel. In re Las Colinas Development Corp., 585 F.2d 7, 13 (1st Cir. 1978); In re Victor Publishers, Inc., 545 F.2d 285, 286 (1st Cir. 1976), and cases cited therein. Recause'the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate on appeal why it should not be required to comply with this rule, we find no error in the trial justice’s denial of the writ of mandamus.

*877 Aram K. Berberian, for plaintiff. Forrest Avila, for respondent

The plaintiffs appeal is denied and dismissed, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court.

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

*876 Per Curiam.

This is an appeal in a civil action brought by the plaintiff following the refusal, of a Superior Court justice to issue a writ of mandamus. The record indicates that the plaintiff initiated, through its attorney, an action in Small Claims Court to recover $80 for legal services rendered. On the two occasions when the case was called for a hearing, however, the plaintiff was represented by a corporate officer who was not licensed to practice law in this state. Prior to each hearing the officer present requested a default judgment in the plaintiffs favor. Nevertheless, the clerk of the court refused to mark the case ready for a hearing, and the court refused to order a default judgment. The plaintiff then sought a writ of mandamus in the Superior Court to command issuance of a default judgment.

The issue on appeal is whether the trial justice erred when he denied plaintiff s request for mandamus and held that the corporation was not entitled to be represented in Small Claims Court by a non-attorney corporate officer. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a writ of mandamus will issue only where the plaintiffs have a clear legal right to have the act done that is sought by the writ, where the defendants have a ministerial, legal duty to perform such act without discretion to refuse and where the plaintiffs have no plain or adequate remedy at law. Daluz v. Hawksley, 116 R.I. 49, 52, 351 A.2d 820, 822 (1976); Demers v. Adamson, 102 R.I. 453, 456, 231 A.2d 484, 485 (1967); Aniello v. Marcello, 91 R.I. 198, 202-03, 162 A.2d 270, 272 (1960). Thus, plaintiff was required to fulfill these conditions precedent before the writ of mandamus could be issued.

In the instant case we are of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to show that it has a clear legal right to the relief sought in light of the well-established principle that a corporation may be represented only by licensed counsel. In re Las Colinas Development Corp., 585 F.2d 7, 13 (1st Cir. 1978); In re Victor Publishers, Inc., 545 F.2d 285, 286 (1st Cir. 1976), and cases cited therein. Recause'the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate on appeal why it should not be required to comply with this rule, we find no error in the trial justice’s denial of the writ of mandamus.

*877 Aram K. Berberian, for plaintiff. Forrest Avila, for respondent

The plaintiffs appeal is denied and dismissed, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

403 A.2d 1084, 121 R.I. 875, 1979 R.I. LEXIS 2034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plantations-legal-defense-services-inc-v-grande-ri-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack