The opinion
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
Roots Informatics et al., MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 2:24-cv-00394-HCN-DBP
Justin Peck, et al., District Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr
Defendants. Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
This matter is before the court on pro se Plaintiff Thurman Brown’s Motion to Appoint
Counsel.1 On May 31, 2024, Plaintiff “Roots Informatics LP … through its undersigned counsel”
filed suit alleging breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy to commit fraud and theft of intellectual
property, and unfair competition and deceptive practices.2 The claims are essentially repeated for
each of the named Defendants throughout the Complaint. The Complaint is then signed
“Thurman Brown, Pro Se-Plaintiff” with a phone number, email, and “Counsel for Plaintiff,
Roots Informatics LP.”
Based on the Complaint, Plaintiffs are in violation of the Local Rules. Local Rule 83-1.3
outlines the requirements for self-representation, it provides:
(1) Individuals may represent themselves.
(2) A corporation, association, partnership, or other artificial entity must be
represented by an attorney who is admitted under DUCivR 83-1.1.3
1 ECF No. 9.
2 Complaint p. 6-7, ECF No. 1.
3 DUCivR 83-1.3 (2023).
Plaintiff Roots Informatics is a “company specializing in advanced database functionalities and
analytics for healthcare applications.”4 Because it is an artificial entity, Roots Informatics must
be represented by an attorney who is admitted to practice under the Local Rules. Mr. Brown,
who claims he is a pro se Plaintiff, cannot represent Roots Informatics. In similar fashion, Mr.
Brown cannot represent Plaintiff Thurman Brown Consultant, Inc., which is also an artificial
entity.
Based on the Plaintiffs’ failure to abide by the Local Rules, the court has entered multiple
Orders to Show Cause, and provided Plaintiffs an additional opportunity to obtain counsel in an
order entered July 2, 2024. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the court’s orders. Now
presumably in an attempt to comply, Plaintiff Thurman Brown requests the court appoint counsel
to represent Plaintiffs “in this complex civil litigation.”5
Although appointment of counsel is permissible in certain circumstances, a civil plaintiff
has no statutory or constitutional right to the appointment of counsel.6 “The burden is on the
applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to warrant the
appointment of counsel.”7 Courts consider “the merits of a [plaintiff’s] claims, the nature and
complexity of the factual and legal issues, and a [plaintiff’s] ability to investigate the facts and
present his claims.”8
Here, Plaintiffs bring this matter claiming Defendants conspired to commit “intellectual
property theft, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unfair competition, and deceptive business
4 Complaint p. 4.
5 Mtn. p. 1.
6 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
7 Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004).
8 Id.
practices.”? This was done by the alleged creation of false government documents, strategic
resignations, replication of proprietary technology, and misleading communications that led to
significant financial losses to Roots Informatics. Plaintiffs demand one billion dollars in
damages.
Based on Mr. Brown’s filings, the court is not persuaded he lacks the ability to
investigate the facts or present his respective claims. In addition, the merits of the claims, and the
nature and complexity of the facts, do not warrant the appointment of counsel. Thus, the court
DENIES the Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
Finally, the problem persists that the artificial entities must be represented by counsel.
The court affords Plaintiffs one last opportunity to obtain counsel and have them enter an
appearance on or before August 23, 2024. A failure to do so will result in the undersigned
recommending this matter be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 9 August 2024.
AB
United Stafes Mapistrate Judge
Complaint p. 1.