Trustees of the Bricklayers Union Local No 6 of Indiana Pension Fund v. Lakewood Design, Inc.

N.D. Indiana

Trustees of the Bricklayers Union Local No 6 of Indiana Pension Fund v. Lakewood Design, Inc.

DecidedApril 8, 2022

Docket2:19-cv-00105

StatusUnknown

This text of Trustees of the Bricklayers Union Local No 6 of Indiana Pension Fund v. Lakewood Design, Inc. (Trustees of the Bricklayers Union Local No 6 of Indiana Pension Fund v. Lakewood Design, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trustees of the Bricklayers Union Local No 6 of Indiana Pension Fund v. Lakewood Design, Inc., (N.D. Ind. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL NO 6 ) BRICKLAYERS UNION OF INDIANA ) PENSION FUND, et al., ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:19-CV-105-JVB-JPK ) LAKEWOOD DESIGN, INC., ) Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on an Objection [DE 60] filed on February 15, 2022, and on a Motion to Deny Garnishment and Vacate Judgement [DE 63] filed on February 24, 2022. Both documents were filed by Terry Vaidik, a representative of (but not legal counsel for) Defendant Lakewood Design, Inc. Vaidik mentions in his objection that he has been unable to secure legal counsel due to cost. He then proceeds to argue that he withdrew as a signatory contractor of Local 4 Brick Masons in 2005. He also indicates that at some point during this litigation he has been recovering from major surgery. In his motion, Vaidik also asserts that the initial agreement was made with Lakewood Design/Build, Inc. and not Defendant. Unfortunately for Defendant and Vaidik, however, a corporation is not permitted to litigate in federal court without licensed counsel.1 Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); Strong Delivery Ministry Ass’n v. Bd. of Appeals of Cook Cnty., 543 F.2d 32, 34 (7th Cir. 1976). Thus, the Court cannot entertain the arguments Vaidik raises on Defendant’s behalf. Having chosen to accept the benefits of incorporation, Vaidik and

1 Defendant and Vaidik have been aware of Vaidik’s inability to represent Defendant in federal court since at least May 4, 2021. See (Order, ECF No. 46). Defendant must also bear the burdens of incorporation, including the requirement to litigate through an attorney. See Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 2007). Based on the following, the Court STRIKES the Objection [DE 60] and the Motion to Deny Garnishment and Vacate Judgement [DE 63]. The Court SETS a final deadline of May 20,

2022, by which Defendant may respond by counsel to the pending Motion for Entry of Final Order in Financial Institution Garnishment. SO ORDERED on April 7, 2022. s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL NO 6 ) BRICKLAYERS UNION OF INDIANA ) PENSION FUND, et al., ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:19-CV-105-JVB-JPK ) LAKEWOOD DESIGN, INC., ) Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on an Objection [DE 60] filed on February 15, 2022, and on a Motion to Deny Garnishment and Vacate Judgement [DE 63] filed on February 24, 2022. Both documents were filed by Terry Vaidik, a representative of (but not legal counsel for) Defendant Lakewood Design, Inc. Vaidik mentions in his objection that he has been unable to secure legal counsel due to cost. He then proceeds to argue that he withdrew as a signatory contractor of Local 4 Brick Masons in 2005. He also indicates that at some point during this litigation he has been recovering from major surgery. In his motion, Vaidik also asserts that the initial agreement was made with Lakewood Design/Build, Inc. and not Defendant. Unfortunately for Defendant and Vaidik, however, a corporation is not permitted to litigate in federal court without licensed counsel.1 Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); Strong Delivery Ministry Ass’n v. Bd. of Appeals of Cook Cnty., 543 F.2d 32, 34 (7th Cir. 1976). Thus, the Court cannot entertain the arguments Vaidik raises on Defendant’s behalf. Having chosen to accept the benefits of incorporation, Vaidik and

1 Defendant and Vaidik have been aware of Vaidik’s inability to represent Defendant in federal court since at least May 4, 2021. See (Order, ECF No. 46). Defendant must also bear the burdens of incorporation, including the requirement to litigate through an attorney. See Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 2007). Based on the following, the Court STRIKES the Objection [DE 60] and the Motion to Deny Garnishment and Vacate Judgement [DE 63]. The Court SETS a final deadline of May 20,

2022, by which Defendant may respond by counsel to the pending Motion for Entry of Final Order in Financial Institution Garnishment. SO ORDERED on April 7, 2022. s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Trustees of the Bricklayers Union Local No 6 of Indiana Pension Fund v. Lakewood Design, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trustees-of-the-bricklayers-union-local-no-6-of-indiana-pension-fund-v-innd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack