Trustees of the Bricklayers Union Local No 6 of Indiana Pension Fund et al v. Lakewood Design, Inc., No. 2:2019cv00105 - Document 65 (N.D. Ind. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Court STRIKES the Objection 60 and the Motion to Deny Garnishment and Vacate Judgement 63 . The Court SETS a final deadline of 5/20/2022, by which Defendant may respond by counsel to the pending Motion for Entry of Final Order in Financial Institution Garnishment. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 4/7/2022. (shk) (Copy mailed to pro se party)

Download PDF
Trustees of the Bricklayers Union Local No 6 of Indiana Pension Fund et al v. Lakewood Design, Inc. Doc. 65 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL NO 6 BRICKLAYERS UNION OF INDIANA PENSION FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LAKEWOOD DESIGN, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO.: 2:19-CV-105-JVB-JPK OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on an Objection [DE 60] filed on February 15, 2022, and on a Motion to Deny Garnishment and Vacate Judgement [DE 63] filed on February 24, 2022. Both documents were filed by Terry Vaidik, a representative of (but not legal counsel for) Defendant Lakewood Design, Inc. Vaidik mentions in his objection that he has been unable to secure legal counsel due to cost. He then proceeds to argue that he withdrew as a signatory contractor of Local 4 Brick Masons in 2005. He also indicates that at some point during this litigation he has been recovering from major surgery. In his motion, Vaidik also asserts that the initial agreement was made with Lakewood Design/Build, Inc. and not Defendant. Unfortunately for Defendant and Vaidik, however, a corporation is not permitted to litigate in federal court without licensed counsel. 1 Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); Strong Delivery Ministry Ass’n v. Bd. of Appeals of Cook Cnty., 543 F.2d 32, 34 (7th Cir. 1976). Thus, the Court cannot entertain the arguments Vaidik raises on Defendant’s behalf. Having chosen to accept the benefits of incorporation, Vaidik and 1 Defendant and Vaidik have been aware of Vaidik’s inability to represent Defendant in federal court since at least May 4, 2021. See (Order, ECF No. 46). Dockets.Justia.com Defendant must also bear the burdens of incorporation, including the requirement to litigate through an attorney. See Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 2007). Based on the following, the Court STRIKES the Objection [DE 60] and the Motion to Deny Garnishment and Vacate Judgement [DE 63]. The Court SETS a final deadline of May 20, 2022, by which Defendant may respond by counsel to the pending Motion for Entry of Final Order in Financial Institution Garnishment. SO ORDERED on April 7, 2022. s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.