Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 2, 2020

BlackCrown Inc. v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:19-cv-11578
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In BlackCrown v. Charles Schwab, Judge Woods dismissed the action without prejudice because BlackCrown Inc., a corporation, lacked counsel.

Who this affects

BlackCrown Inc.'s case was dismissed without prejudice because the corporation was not represented by counsel; the order did not decide the underlying dispute with Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.

What happened

BlackCrown Inc. sued Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. in the Southern District of New York, but BlackCrown tried to proceed without a lawyer.

The court explained that corporations must appear in federal court through licensed counsel. Because BlackCrown was not represented, the court dismissed the action without prejudice.

Judge Woods directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order does not decide the underlying dispute between the parties.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
BlackCrown Inc. v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11578
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Jan. 2, 2020

Background

BlackCrown Inc. brought this action against Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. The opinion states that BlackCrown attempted to proceed without a lawyer.

Court's analysis

The court held that a corporation must appear in federal court through licensed counsel. It relied on decisions stating that a corporation cannot be represented by a layperson. The court therefore determined that BlackCrown had to retain an attorney if it wanted to prosecute the case.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action without prejudice because BlackCrown was not represented by counsel. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order resolved the case on the representation requirement and did not address the underlying dispute's merits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.