Nails Construction Company v. United States Department of Housing and Urban…

Background

Fredrick Newell brought this action for himself and four entities: Nails Construction Company, Newell Abatement Services, Inc., Lead Investigative Services, Inc., and The Access Group. No attorney had appeared for any plaintiff, and Newell was not an attorney. In an earlier order, the court explained that Newell could represent himself but that the four entities could not proceed in federal court without lawyers. The court gave the entities until November 11, 2022, to file an amended complaint signed by an attorney who entered an appearance, and warned that failure to obtain representation could lead to dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Motions and analysis

The plaintiffs asked the court either to appoint counsel for the entity plaintiffs or to give them additional time to find counsel. The court denied appointment of counsel. It noted uncertainty about whether a federal court may appoint counsel for a corporation in a civil case. It also concluded that appointment was not warranted because the plaintiffs did not provide verified financial information showing that the entities could not obtain their own counsel, and it was unclear whether the entities served a necessary purpose in the case. The court reiterated that Newell could continue representing himself.

The court granted the request for an extension in part. It extended the deadline to January 9, 2023, which the order identified as the date by which the plaintiffs had to serve the complaint on the defendant under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By that date, an attorney licensed to practice in the District of Minnesota had to enter an appearance for the four entities and file an amended complaint. If the entities could not prosecute the case because they lacked representation, they could be dismissed without prejudice.

Disposition

The order states that the Petition to Appoint Counsel and Motion for an Extension of Time was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the motion for appointment of counsel was DENIED, and the motion for an extension of time was GRANTED IN PART. The order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims against the Department of Housing and Urban Development.