Aaron Carlson Corporation v. Cohen
- Susan Nelson
- 0:19-cv-02828
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Aaron Carlson Corp. v. Cohen: Judge Nelson dismissed the case without prejudice because the corporation lacked replacement counsel and denied defendants’ motions as moot.
Aaron Carlson Corporation’s claims were dismissed without prejudice; the defendants’ motions to dismiss were denied as moot.
What happened
Aaron Carlson Corporation sued Neal Cohen and other defendants. After its lawyers were allowed to withdraw, the corporation did not obtain new counsel by the court’s deadline.
The court explained that a corporation cannot represent itself without a licensed lawyer. Because Aaron Carlson Corporation failed to retain replacement counsel, the court dismissed its claims without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss as moot. The court therefore did not decide the defendants’ arguments about personal jurisdiction or whether the complaint stated a valid claim.
The detailed version
- Aaron Carlson Corporation v. Cohen · No. 0:19-cv-02828
- Susan Nelson
- July 7, 2020
Background
Aaron Carlson Corporation sued Neal Cohen, Darren Chaffee, CoBe Equities, LLC, CoBe Capital, LLC, LSI of America Holdings, LLC, LinCourt, LLC, Harvey Berk, CoBe Management, LLC, and Cocha Finance, LLC. The Schwartz Law Firm had represented Aaron Carlson Corporation, but the court allowed that firm to withdraw on June 3, 2020. The court gave the corporation 30 days to retain substitute counsel and file a formal appearance.
That deadline passed without substitute counsel appearing. The court relied on the rule that a corporation may be represented only by licensed counsel and therefore cannot proceed without a lawyer.
Motions and Issues
Harvey Berk and several of the entity defendants separately moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim. Because the court dismissed the case based on Aaron Carlson Corporation’s failure to obtain counsel, it did not decide those arguments.
Ruling
The court dismissed the case without prejudice because Aaron Carlson Corporation failed to retain new counsel. It denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss as moot. The order did not decide the personal-jurisdiction or failure-to-state-a-claim issues on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.