Tenacious T Trust v. Middleman
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-01080
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Tenacious T Trust v. Middleman, Magistrate Judge Foster recommended dismissing the case without prejudice because the Trust lacked proper counsel.
The recommendation affects Tenacious T Trust by proposing dismissal of its case without prejudice because it did not obtain proper counsel or comply with the court’s order. The defendants are affected because the Trust’s claims would not proceed unless the district court adopts the recommendation and the matter is later properly pursued.
What happened
Tenacious T Trust v. Middleman concerns the Trust’s request for a declaration that it owns certain property and an order preventing the defendants from asserting conflicting claims. The complaint was signed by Troy Smith, who identified himself as the Trust’s trustee but did not appear to be an attorney.
The court ordered the Trust to have an attorney enter an appearance by April 15, 2025, explaining that a non-attorney cannot represent an entity in federal court. The Trust instead filed a notice asserting Smith’s appearance, so the court found that it had not complied with the order and still lacked proper counsel.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended dismissing the matter without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The report and recommendation is not a final order or judgment, and the parties may file written objections within 14 days after being served with it.
The detailed version
- Tenacious T Trust v. Middleman · No. 0:25-cv-01080
- Eric Tostrud
- Apr. 16, 2025
Background
Tenacious T Trust filed a complaint titled “Notice of Affidavit Quiet Title Claim.” The Trust alleged that claims by certain financial institutions created a cloud on its title to property located in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. It requested a declaration confirming its ownership and an injunction preventing the defendants from asserting adverse claims.
The complaint was signed by Troy Smith, who identified himself as the Trust’s “trustee.” The opinion states that Smith did not appear to be an attorney.
Requirement to Obtain Counsel
On March 26, 2025, the court ordered counsel for the Trust to enter an appearance by April 15, 2025. The order warned that the court would recommend dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute if the Trust did not obtain proper counsel. The court explained that a non-attorney cannot represent another individual or an entity in federal court.
On April 14, 2025, the Trust filed a “Notice of Special Appearance” that again appeared to assert Smith as its representative. The notice stated that Smith’s appearance was limited to asserting procedural and substantive rights and was not a general appearance or consent to the court’s jurisdiction. The court concluded that this filing did not comply with the March 26 order and that the Trust still lacked proper counsel. The opinion’s footnote states that any counsel would have to be admitted to practice in federal court in the District of Minnesota.
Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended that the matter be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. “Without prejudice” means the recommendation does not state that refiling is barred. This document is a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the district court, and it is not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The parties may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation, and a party may respond to objections within 14 days after service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.