DIGITAL ADVERTISING DISPLAYS INC. v. DHANDO INVESTMENTS INC. et al, No. 2:2018cv02171 - Document 5 (D.N.J. 2018)

Court Description: LETTER OPINION FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants and Retain Counsel is DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 05/04/2018. (sms)

Download PDF
DIGITAL ADVERTISING DISPLAYS INC. v. DHANDO INVESTMENTS INC. et al Doc. 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CHAMBERS OF MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE 50 WALNUT ST. NEWARK, NJ 07101 973-645-5903 SUSAN D. WIGENTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE May 4, 2018 Jeff Storey Digital Advertising Displays Inc. P.O. Box 63 Larkspur, CO 80118 Plaintiff LETTER OPINION FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT Re: Digital Advertising Displays Inc. v. Dhando Investments Inc. et al. Civil Action No. 18-2171 (SDW) (CLW) Mr. Storey: Before this Court is Plaintiff Digital Advertising Displays, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants and Retain Counsel. This Court having considered Plaintiff’s submission, having reached its decision without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, for the reasons discussed below, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants in this Court. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff, a “corporation organized in the State of Colorado, having its principle place of business at 9200 East Mineral Ave., Centenniel, CO 80112” filed its Complaint “acting Pro Se.” (Id. at 12). On March 1, 2018, the Clerk of the Court entered a Quality Control Message on the electronic docket, informing Plaintiff that “although an individual is entitled to proceed pro se, a corporation must be represented by counsel.” On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff informed the Court that it “plans to have legal counsel in place for this case and we are currently in the process of interviewing legal counsel now.” (Dkt. No. 3.) On April 30, 2018, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to serve defendants and to retain counsel. (Dkt. No. 4.) DISCUSSION “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.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Dockets.Justia.com Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); see also United States v. Cocivera, 204 F.3d 566, 572-73 (3d Cir. 1996); In re 69 N. Franklin Tpk., LLC, 693 Fed. Appx. 141, 144 (3d Cir. 2017). Plaintiff was informed of this requirement on March 1, 2018, but has not yet hired an attorney. Plaintiff has had ample time to cure this deficiency and allowing this matter to proceed any longer would “eviscerate the requirement that corporations and other entities by represented by counsel.” In re 69 N. Franklin Tpk., 693 Fed. Appx. at 144 (internal citations omitted). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied and its Complaint dismissed without prejudice. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants and Retain Counsel is DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. An appropriate order follows. ___/s/ Susan D. Wigenton_____ SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J. Orig: Clerk cc: Parties Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J. 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.