Bighorn Construction & Reclamation, LLC v. RES America Construction Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Bighorn Construction & Reclamation, LLC, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
vs. 	)
)
RES America Construction, Inc., 	) 	Case No. 1:21-cv-113
)
Defendant. 	)
On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw. (Doc. No. 54). On
September 20, 2022, the court granted the motion. (Doc. No. 55). No one has since entered an
appearance on Plaintiff’s counsel. Consequently, Plaintiff is for all intents and purposes
unrepresented at present.
On September 27, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 56). On February
7, 2023, it filed a Motion to Stay Pretrial Deadlines, asserting that a stay of all deadlines pending
the court’s disposition of its Motion to Dismiss is appropriate under the circumstances. 	(Doc. No.
60).
The court agrees that a stay of all pretrial deadlines is appropriate as this case is effectively
at a standstill on account of Plaintiff’s lack of representation. Defendant’s Motion to Stay Pretrial
Deadlines (Doc. No. 60) is therefore GRANTED. 	All pretrial deadlines are cancelled pending
further order of the court.
Plaintiff cannot proceed pro se. See Painters Loc. Union No. 1265 v. Int'l Union of Painters
& Allied Trades, No. 6:21-CV-03286-RK, 2022 WL 2374743, at *2 (W.D. Mo. June 30, 2022)
(“Entities, however, must be represented in federal court by and through counsel or legal
1
Case 1:21-cv-00113-DMT-CRH Document 61 Filed 03/30/23 Page 1 of 3

representation; they cannot proceed in a pro se manner); see also 	S.E.C. v. Lawton, No. CIV.
09-368 ADM/AJB, 2011 WL 1467742, at *1 (D. Minn. Apr. 18, 2011) (opining that a an LLC may
not be represented pro se); Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 139 (2d. Cir. 2007) (“Because both
a partnership and a corporation must appear through licensed counsel, and because a limited liability
company is a hybrid of the partnership and corporate forms ... a limited liability company also may
appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney.”) (internal citation omitted)); United States
v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579, 580 (7th Cir. 2008) (“Pro se litigation is a burden on the judiciary...and
the burden is not to be borne when the litigant has chosen to do business in entity form. He must take
the burdens with the benefits.” (internal citations omitted)).
Since the court granted the motion to withdraw, Plaintiff has had approximately five months
to find new counsel. Plaintiff shall have an additional twenty-one days to retain new counsel and
for new counsel to enter an appearance on its behalf. Once new counsel has entered an appearance
on Plaintiff’s behalf, the court shall schedule a status conference. Plaintiff should appreciate that
a failure on its part to retain new counsel may have consequences both in terms of its claim and
Defendants counterclaim. See e.g., Two Old Hippies, LLC v. Catch the Bus, LLC, 784 F. Supp.2d
1221 (D.N.M. 2011) (ordering the entry of default judgment against a defendant LLC if counsel did
not enter an appearance on its behalf within 10 days); Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168 (8th Cir.
1995) (recognizing that district courts have the inherent power to, in its discretion, dismiss a case
sua sponte for failure to prosecute); Sterling v. United States, 985 F.2d 411, 412 (8th Cir. 1993)
(same); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also D.N.D. Civ. L.R. 7.1(F) (A party’s failure to serve and file
a memorandum or a response within the prescribed time may subject a motion to summary
ruling....An adverse party’s failure to serve and file a response to a motion may be deemed an
2
Case 1:21-cv-00113-DMT-CRH Document 61 Filed 03/30/23 Page 2 of 3

admission that the motion is well taken.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 30th day of March, 2023.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
3
Case 1:21-cv-00113-DMT-CRH Document 61 Filed 03/30/23 Page 3 of 3