Sensus Healthcare, Inc. v. Michigan Health Clinics, P.C.
This text of Sensus Healthcare, Inc. v. Michigan Health Clinics, P.C. (Sensus Healthcare, Inc. v. Michigan Health Clinics, P.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
SENSUS HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 25-13515
Plaintiff, F. Kay Behm v. United States District Judge
MICHIGAN HEALTH CLINICS, P.C.
Defendant. ___________________________ /
ORDER TO OBTAIN COUNSEL
On November 4, 2025, Dr. David Stockman, as sole officer and managing representative of Defendant Michigan Health Clinics, P.C., filed a notice of removal from state court. (ECF No. 1). Dr. Stockman does not appear to be an attorney and filed the notice of removal on behalf of Defendant corporation, without counsel. The notice of removal states that “Corporate counsel is in the process of being retained and will appear promptly upon removal.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.3) (emphasis in original). No counsel has yet appeared as of the date of this order. A corporation may not litigate a case pro se; it must have a lawyer represent it or risk default or dismissal. See Rowland v. California Mens Colony, Unit II Mens' Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-03 (1993) (“A corporation, partnership, or association may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel and not through the pro se representation of an
officer, agent, or shareholder.”)); Doherty v. Am. Motors Corp., 728 F.2d 334, 340 (6th Cir. 1984) (“The rule of this circuit is that a corporation cannot appear
in federal court except through an attorney.”); SEC v. Merklinger, 489 F. App’x 937, 939-40 (6th Cir. 2012) (“A corporate officer may not appear in federal court on behalf of the corporation; rather, the corporation must be
represented by counsel.”) (citing Taylor Steel, Inc. v. Keeton, 417 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2005)); see also Dickson v. Direct Energy, LP, No. 18-CV-00182, 2024 WL 4416856, at *16 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 4, 2024).
As such, the court ORDERS that Defendant has 14 days to obtain representation. Failure to cure Defendant’s lack of representation in that
time will result in a default against Defendant. SO ORDERED. Date: November 21, 2025 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm 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
Sensus Healthcare, Inc. v. Michigan Health Clinics, P.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sensus-healthcare-inc-v-michigan-health-clinics-pc-mied-2025.