Opinion

First Amendment Foundation v. Village of Brookfield

  • 575 F. Supp. 1207
  • 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10658
Court
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Filed
Dec 19, 1983
Status
Published
Author
Getzendanner
On the bench
Getzendanner
Cited by
16 cases
Authority
More cited than 95.3%

striking papers filed by a non-attorney on behalf of a corporation

How later courts described this case

  • striking papers filed by a non-attorney on behalf of a corporation
  • corporations, partnerships, and unincorporated associations may not appear through an officer or other nonattorney representative
  • partnership must be represented by attorney admitted to practice

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GETZENDANNER, District Judge:

On its own motion, the court dismisses this action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1654 . Paragraph 2 of the Complaint in this case states in part:

Plaintiff, THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOUNDATION is a Partnership of Pro Se Litigants who are citizens of the United States of America and Canada. The First Amendment Foundation is located in Rainy River, Ontario, Canada. Shelly Weisberg is a Partner in the First Amendment Foundation and will appear in Court as a Pro Socio.

28 U.S.C. § 1654 provides:

In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.

Corporations must be represented in court by attorneys admitted to practice, and may not appear through an officer or other lay representative.

Strong Delivery Ministry Association v. Board of Appeals,

543 F.2d 32 (7th Cir.1976). The same rule applies to partnerships and other unincorporated organizations.

Move Organization v. United States Department of Justice,

555 F.Supp. 684, 692-93 (E.D.Pa.1983);

Turner v. American Bar Association,

407 F.Supp. 451, 476 (N.D.Tex., W.D.Pa., N.D. Ind., D.Minn., S.D.Ala., W.D.Wis.1975),

aff'd sub nom. Pilla v. American Bar Association,

542 F.2d 56 (8th Cir.1976).

But see United States v. Reeves,

431 F.2d 1187 (9th Cir.1970).

Mr. Weisberg is not a member of the bar of this court, and it is the court’s understanding that he is not an attorney. His appearance on behalf of plaintiff therefore is improper. The order of December 16, 1983, granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, is vacated. The papers

*1208

filed on plaintiffs behalf are stricken, and the case is dismissed without prejudice.

It is so ordered.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.