Partridge v. Black Rock LLC

Background

Nicholas Partridge proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to file without paying the filing fee. He alleged that Black Rock LLC’s website had become similar to Cash Harbor LLC’s website, including its color theme and use of the word “Cash.” He also alleged that Black Rock’s relationship with Authentic Brands Group LLC affected a contract. The defendants named in the caption were Black Rock LLC, Larry Fink, Larry Kapito, and Phillip Hildebrand.

Partridge asserted copyright claims, claims under 41 U.S.C. §§ 6301 and 6703, and claims under federal criminal law. He attached a registration form from copyrighted.com indicating that Cash Harbor LLC had registered its brand name and logo there. The court had previously dismissed his complaint but allowed him to amend by alleging that he personally owned and registered the copyrighted works and that the defendants infringed them. His amended complaint remained substantively similar to the original complaint.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that a nonlawyer may represent only his own interests. A limited liability company is a separate legal entity from its owner, even when it has only one member, and therefore must appear in federal court through a licensed attorney. Partridge’s status as Cash Harbor LLC’s founder and sole member did not allow him to litigate claims for the LLC.

The court further held that Partridge had not alleged that he personally registered and owned the works involved in the copyright claims. It therefore dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The dismissal was without prejudice to Cash Harbor LLC bringing the copyright claims through counsel.

The court also dismissed Partridge’s claims under 41 U.S.C. §§ 6301 and 6703 for failure to state a claim, for the reasons given in the earlier dismissal order. It likewise dismissed his federal criminal-law claims because a private plaintiff cannot begin a criminal prosecution through a civil case. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The court also noted that Partridge had not shown a basis for diversity jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It declined to give Partridge another opportunity to amend because he had already amended and the defects could not be cured by further amendment. The claims brought on behalf of Cash Harbor LLC were dismissed without prejudice to their being brought through counsel by Cash Harbor LLC. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.