Jackson v. OMM, LLC

Background

Sylinia Jackson sued OMM, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The opinion does not describe the allegations in the complaint in detail. OMM submitted an attached document styled as a motion to dismiss. The document was signed by Mellina Soheili, identified as OMM’s Managing Partner, and discussed OMM’s website, accessibility efforts, and claimed compliance with disability-accessibility standards.

Court’s action on the filing

The court explained that a corporate entity, including a limited liability company, cannot represent itself in federal court. It must appear through a lawyer licensed to practice before the court. No lawyer had appeared for OMM, and the court stated that Soheili did not appear to be a member of the court’s bar. Because the document was not submitted through proper counsel, the court said it would take no further action in response to it. The court therefore did not rule on the substance of OMM’s request to dismiss the case.

Deadline and filing instructions

As a courtesy, the court granted OMM a retroactive extension of its deadline to answer the complaint. The new deadline was August 29, 2022. The court warned that default judgment—judgment based on a party’s failure to properly respond—may be entered if OMM did not respond to the complaint through a proper filing by counsel by that date.

The court also cautioned that all future filings by OMM, as a represented party for these purposes, must generally be made electronically through the court’s Electronic Case Filing system. The Clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Soheili as a courtesy, but the court stated that future orders would not be mailed to OMM.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman took no further action on the attached motion to dismiss because OMM had not appeared through licensed counsel. He granted OMM a retroactive extension of its answer deadline to August 29, 2022. The order did not enter default judgment and did not decide the underlying claims.