American Covers v. Rok Imports, No. 2:2012cv00279 - Document 17 (D. Utah 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 16 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 2 Complaint. Answer deadline updated for Rok Imports answer due 12/17/2012. Defendant Rok Imports shall have until December 17, 2012, to retain counsel and respond to Plaintiffs Complaint. Failure to do so may result in sanctions up to and including default judgment. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 11/06/2012. (asp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION AMERICAN COVERS, a Utah corporation Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME vs. ROK IMPORTS, a New York corporation, Case No. 2:12-CV-279 TS Defendant. This matter is before the Court for consideration of a letter from Robert Kreisner, President of Defendant Rok Imports, which seeks additional time to respond to Plaintiff s Complaint. Plaintiff has not responded to Mr. Kreisner s letter. As an initial matter, the Court notes that a corporation may not appear through a nonattorney corporate officer appearing pro se. 1 Rather, a corporation can appear in a court of record only by an attorney at law. 2 Thus, even though Mr. Kreisner is the President of Rok Imports, he may not represent that entity in this proceeding. 1 Harrison v. Wahatoyas, L.L.C., 253 F.3d 552, 556 (10th Cir. 2001). 2 Flora Const. Co. v. Fireman s Fund Ins. Co., 307 F.2d 413, 414 (10th Cir. 1962). 1 Nevertheless, because the request for an extension of time has not been opposed,3 it will be granted. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant s Motion for Extension of Time (Docket No. 16) is GRANTED. Defendant Rok Imports shall have until December 17, 2012, to retain counsel and respond to Plaintiff s Complaint. Failure to do so may result in sanctions up to and including default judgment. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Kreisner at the address listed in his letter (Docket No. 16). DATED November 6, 2012. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 3 See DUCivR 7-1(d) ( Failure to respond timely to a motion may result in the court's granting the motion without further notice. ). 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.
