Reed v. Johnson

Full title: CATRINA M. REED v. R.C. JOHNSON, ET AL

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Aug 16, 1995

Civil Action No. 93-1652, Section "K" (E.D. La. Aug. 16, 1995)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 93-1652, Section "K".

August 16, 1995

STANWOOD DUVAL JR., District Judge

Before the Court is a Motion to Strike Answer and a Motion for Contempt and Attorney's Fees filed on behalf of plaintiff. Determining in its discretion that oral argument is not necessary, the Court CANCELS the hearing currently scheduled on August 23, 1995. After reviewing the pleadings, the memoranda and the relevant law, the Court finds the Motion to Strike Answer meritorious. The Court finds the Motion for Contempt and Attorney's Fees to be without merit.

A. MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER

Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Strike the Answer of African Harvest, Inc. claiming that it is ineffective because it was filed pro se. Defendants, on the other hand, argue that the pro se answer is effective because Wesley Johnson is the "alter ego" of African Harvest and a party to this litigation citing United States v. Priority Products, Inc., 615 F. Supp. 593 (CIT 1985).

The proposition that a corporation may be represented in court only through an attorney at law is longstanding and widely supported beginning with Osborn v. Bank of United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 829-30 (1824).

A narrow exception to the almost absolute rule requiring attorney representation of a corporation exists when a corporation is the "alter ego" of an individual or is closely held. Some courts have held that a corporation may appear through an agent other than an attorney where the agent is a party to the action along with the corporation. See Priority Products, 615 F. Supp. at 596. African Harvest, Inc. has presented no evidence that it falls within this very narrow exception and, as such, the instant motion is GRANTED.

B. MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ATTORNEY'S FEES

Plaintiff moves the Court for Contempt and Attorney's Fees claiming that defendants have refused and/or failed to comply with Magistrate Fonseca's Order to Compel dated May 31, 1995. Defendants claim that a clerical error on the part of the Clerk's office caused the confusion. Specifically, the defendants claim that they intended to appeal Magistrate Fonseca's order but instead it was sent to the Fifth Circuit. Defendants further request that they now be allowed to object to Magistrate Fonseca' order.

In light of the clerical error and the further confusion surrounding Hurricane Erin, the Court will allow the objections to be filed now and, as such, the instant Motion for Contempt and for Attorney's Fees is DENIED.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Answer be and is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Contempt and Attorney's Fees be and is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any objections to Magistrate Fonseca's May 31, 1995 Order must be filed in Chambers no later than Tuesday, August 22, 1995 at noon. Any response to such objection must be filed in Chambers no later than Thursday, August 24, 1995 at 4:30 p.m.