MR Crescent City, LLC v. TJ Biscayne Holdings LLC, No. 12-1432 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1432 MR CRESCENT CITY, LLC; MCCRARY CRESCENT CITY, LLC; MICHAEL C. MCCRARY, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. TJ BISCAYNE HOLDINGS LLC; MARKET BEACH, LLC; STUART C. FISHER, STREET PROPERTIES PALM Defendants Appellants, and EDWARD V. GIANNASCA, II; GIANNASCA CRESCENT CRESCENT CITY ESTATES, LLC; TAMARA J. FISHER, CITY LLC, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-01039-MJG) Submitted: March 21, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stuart C. Neil Fisher, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth B. Frank, MURPHY, FALCON & MURPHY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Stuart C. Neil Fisher appeals the district court s order affirming the bankruptcy court s order finding Fisher and several of his codefendants in the bankruptcy suit jointly and severally responsible for $181,221.73 in costs and attorneys fees, which it awarded to the parties who opposed the attempt by Fisher and his codefendants to remove a Maryland state court action to the bankruptcy court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. court Accordingly, as it pertains we affirm to the Fisher. judgment See TJ of the Biscayne district Holdings, LLC v. MR Crescent City, LLC, No. 1:11-cv-01039-MJG (D. Md. Mar. 2, 2012). Because Fisher s fellow appellants TJ Biscayne Holdings LLC and Market Street Properties Palm Beach, LLC are not represented by an attorney in this court, we dismiss their appeals of the district court s order. See Rowland v. California Men s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) ( It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel. ); United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579, 581-82 (7th Cir. 2008) (LLCs, like corporations, are not permitted to proceed pro se). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 4