Worrell v. Peco Insurance LLC

W.D. North Carolina

Worrell v. Peco Insurance LLC

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedNovember 13, 2023

Docket3:23-cv-00004

StatusUnknown

This text of Worrell v. Peco Insurance LLC (Worrell v. Peco Insurance LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Worrell v. Peco Insurance LLC, (W.D.N.C. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-00004-RJC-SCR

DAVID WORRELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) PECO INSURANCE LLC, et. al., ) ) Defendants. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte following the filing of a pro se Answer by Defendant Peco Insurance LLC. (Doc. No. 15). The Court warns Defendant Peco Insurance LLC that it must immediately retain counsel. Indeed, “[i]t has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993). The same rule applies for an LLC. Harris Express, LLC v. Moore, No. 4:15- CV-116-BO, 2015 WL 13188205, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2015) (citing United States v. Lavabit, LLC (In re Under Seal), 749 F.3d 276, 290 n. 17 (4th Cir. 2014) (finding that the prohibition on corporations appearing pro se has been applied uniformly to all artificial entities, such as LLCs, “save for a few aberrant cases”)). See also Gilley v. Shoffner, 345 F. Supp. 2d 563, 566 (M.D.N.C. 2004) (dismissing complaint of pro se limited liability company plaintiff); Microsoft Corp. v. Computer Serv. & Repair, Inc., 312 F. Supp. 2d 779, 780 (E.D.N.C. 2004) (same). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Peco Insurance LLC shall secure counsel, who shall file an entry of appearance within thirty days from the date of this Order. In the event Defendant Peco Insurance LLC does not secure replacement counsel within this period of time, Plaintiff may submit a motion requesting appropriate relief. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff David Worrell; to the pro se Defendants Peco Insurance LLC and Julio Batista, 1805 Sardis Road North, Suite 136, Charlotte, North Carolina 28270; to the other parties’ counsel; and to the Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr. SO ORDERED. Signed: November 13, 2023

7 ak 32 Susan C. Rodriguez ‘ United States Magistrate Judge MEY

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-00004-RJC-SCR

DAVID WORRELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) PECO INSURANCE LLC, et. al., ) ) Defendants. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte following the filing of a pro se Answer by Defendant Peco Insurance LLC. (Doc. No. 15). The Court warns Defendant Peco Insurance LLC that it must immediately retain counsel. Indeed, “[i]t has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993). The same rule applies for an LLC. Harris Express, LLC v. Moore, No. 4:15- CV-116-BO, 2015 WL 13188205, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2015) (citing United States v. Lavabit, LLC (In re Under Seal), 749 F.3d 276, 290 n. 17 (4th Cir. 2014) (finding that the prohibition on corporations appearing pro se has been applied uniformly to all artificial entities, such as LLCs, “save for a few aberrant cases”)). See also Gilley v. Shoffner, 345 F. Supp. 2d 563, 566 (M.D.N.C. 2004) (dismissing complaint of pro se limited liability company plaintiff); Microsoft Corp. v. Computer Serv. & Repair, Inc., 312 F. Supp. 2d 779, 780 (E.D.N.C. 2004) (same). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Peco Insurance LLC shall secure counsel, who shall file an entry of appearance within thirty days from the date of this Order. In the event Defendant Peco Insurance LLC does not secure replacement counsel within this period of time, Plaintiff may submit a motion requesting appropriate relief. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff David Worrell; to the pro se Defendants Peco Insurance LLC and Julio Batista, 1805 Sardis Road North, Suite 136, Charlotte, North Carolina 28270; to the other parties’ counsel; and to the Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr. SO ORDERED. Signed: November 13, 2023

7 ak 32 Susan C. Rodriguez ‘ United States Magistrate Judge MEY

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Worrell v. Peco Insurance LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worrell-v-peco-insurance-llc-ncwd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack