Seymour v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

• Court: District Court, D. Maryland
• Decided: October 20, 2020
• Docket: 1:20-cv-02353
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

United States District Court District Of Maryland

Chambers of 101 West Lombard Street Ellen Lipton Hollander Baltimore, Maryland 21201 District Court Judge 410-962-0742

October 20, 2020

MEMORANDUM TO ALLEN B. HOLZMAN AND COUNSEL

Re: Seymour v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. et al. Civil Action No. ELH-20-2353

Dear Mr. Holzman and Counsel:

As you know, on July 1, 2020, plaintiffs Nijae and Deontrae Seymour filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against defendants River Oaks Properties, LLC; Elliot Dackman; Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”); National City Mortgage Company; TLH Realty, Inc. (“TLH”); and Allen B. Holzman and/or Estate of Allen B. Holzman. ECF 3 (the “Complaint”). Plaintiffs allege damages as a result of exposure to lead based paint. Id. FHLMC removed the case to federal court on August 14, 2020. ECF 1. On October 19, 2020, Mr. Holzman, who is self-represented, submitted an answer to the Complaint. ECF 23 (the “Answer”). In his Answer, defendant states: “Defendants, Allen B Holzman, and Estate of Allen B Holzman (which does not exist), and TLH Realty, Inc. (hereafter “Answering Defendants”) hereby respond to the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs….” Id. at 1 (emphasis added). It “has been the law for the better part of two centuries ... that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201 (1993). This principle applies to a limited liability company and to a professional association. See Local Rule 101.1(a) (“All parties other than individuals must be represented by counsel”). Accordingly, Mr. Holzman may represent himself in this matter, but he is not allowed to speak for the business entity defendant. A district court has discretion to grant a reasonable continuance to enable an unrepresented corporate party to secure an attorney. See RZS Holdings AVV v. PDVSA Petroleo S.A., 506 F.3d 350, 356 (4th Cir. 2007) (reversing, for abuse of discretion, a district court's denial of such a continuance). Accordingly, I shall extend through November 16, 2020, the deadline for TLH to respond to the Complaint, in order to provide the entity an opportunity to secure counsel. Despite the informal nature of this Memorandum, it is an Order of the Court and the Clerk is directed to docket it as such.

Very truly yours, /s/ Ellen Lipton Hollander United States District Judge