Farris v. International Association of Bridge
Farris v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental Reinforcing Steel Local 11
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-01314
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Farris v. International Association, Judge Carter ordered CEC Steel to obtain a lawyer or face dismissal from the case.
CEC Steel Limited Liability Company was ordered to appear through a licensed attorney; the order warned that failure to do so would result in CEC Steel being dismissed from the case. Mr. Farris was advised of that consequence, and the defendant was ordered to mail the order and file proof of service.
What happened
In Farris v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental Reinforcing Steel Local 11, the court considered whether CEC Steel Limited Liability Company could proceed without a lawyer in federal court. The court also asked the parties to address whether the case could proceed in this venue, but this order addressed only the lawyer issue.
The court explained that federal law does not allow a person without a law license to represent a separate legal entity, including a limited liability company. It rejected the arguments that CEC Steel was a sole proprietorship or that its tax status allowed it to proceed without counsel.
Judge Andrew Carter ordered CEC Steel to appear through a lawyer. The order warned that CEC Steel’s failure to do so would result in its dismissal from the case, and it ordered the defendant to mail the order to the plaintiffs and file proof of service.
The detailed version
- Farris v. International Association of Bridge · No. 1:20-cv-01314
- Andrew Carter
- Nov. 24, 2020
Background
The court held a telephone status conference on October 28, 2020. It then directed the parties to brief why CEC Steel Limited Liability Company should be allowed to proceed without a lawyer and why the plaintiff should be allowed to proceed in the Southern District of New York. The parties submitted letters addressing the representation issue. This order did not decide the venue issue.
Legal standard
The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1654 and Second Circuit precedent. It explained that people who are not licensed lawyers may represent themselves but may not represent separate legal entities. That rule applies to limited liability companies, including a limited liability company with only one owner. The court also stated that treating an LLC as a “disregarded entity” for tax purposes does not allow it to appear in federal court without a licensed attorney.
Arguments and analysis
CEC Steel’s arguments did not persuade the court. The court stated that federal law governs appearances in federal court, making the plaintiff’s state-law citations irrelevant. Although the plaintiff asserted that CEC Steel was a sole proprietorship, the court found that no supporting evidence had been offered. Based on the defendant’s submissions, the court said CEC Steel appeared to be a limited liability company under New York and New Jersey law. The court again concluded that CEC Steel’s tax status was irrelevant to whether it could proceed without counsel.
Ruling
The court ordered CEC Steel to appear through counsel. It advised Mr. Farris that CEC Steel’s failure to do so would result in CEC Steel being dismissed from the case. The order also directed the defendant to mail a copy of the order to the plaintiff and file proof of service by November 30, 2020.
Deadline discrepancy
The opinion first states that CEC Steel must appear through counsel by January 8, 2021. Its final directive instead says January 8, 2020, which predates the order. The opinion does not explain this discrepancy.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.