United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNSEL NO. 58, et al., Plaintiffs,
PLATINUM ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Allow
Pro Se Representation of Platinum Enterprises, LLC. (ECF No.
33) The motion also contains a Motion to Void Judgment and to
Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process, a Motion for
Writ of Error Coram Nobis, and a Motion for Discovery and to
Compel Discovery. (Id.) Plaintiffs have filed a
response in opposition. Defendants Platinum Enterprises, LLC
and Myrian Baker (collectively "Defendants") did
not file a reply, and the time for doing so has expired. In
addition, Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Compel the
deposition of Defendants (ECF No. 38) and a Motion for
Default Judgment against Garnishee Nu You Contracting &
Remodeling Services, LLC (ECF No. 39). Defendants have not
responded to either motion. For the foregoing reasons, all
pending motions will be denied.
filed this cause of action to recover delinquent fringe
benefit contributions and union dues, liquidated damages,
payroll audit costs, attorneys' fees, and court costs
from Defendants Platinum Enterprises, LLC and Myrian Baker
("Baker"). On June 8, 2018, the Court granted
Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and
entered a Judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally,
in the amount of $271,294.22. (ECF Nos. 13,14) Defendants
then filed a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the default
judgment, wherein Baker sought, inter alia,
to represent the corporation, Platinum Enterprises, LLC, in
a pro se capacity. In the Order of October 30, 2018,
denying Defendants' motion, the Court explicitly stated
that Baker could not represent his company pro se.
(ECF No. 26 p. 2); see also Carr Enters., Inc. v. United
States, 698 F.2d 952, 953 (8th Cir. 1983) ("It is
settled law that a corporation may be represented only by
licensed counsel."); JODA, LLC v. Ace NC Sys.,
LLC, No. 4:09 CV 1197 CDP, 2014 WL 2217279, at * 1 (E.D.
Mo. May 29, 2014) (same). The Order also denied Baker's
motion to set aside the default under Rule 60(b) and granted
Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in the amount of
Defendants' present motion, Baker again requests that the
Court allow pro se representation of Platinum
Enterprises, LLC. Baker contends that he has attempted to
find legal counsel to represent the company, but due to the
complexity of the case and the company's lack of funds,
Baker has been unable to retain legal representation for
Platinum Enterprises, LLC. However, as previously stated by
this Court, "[a] corporation cannot appear pro
se, and must be represented by counsel."
Goodman Distribution, Inc. v. Haaf, No. 4:10-CV-806
CAS, 2011 WL 6934265, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 30, 2011) (citing
Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S.
194, 201-02 (1993)). Thus, the Court will again deny
Baker's motion to represent Platinum Enterprises, LLC
to Defendant Baker's motion for pro se
representation of Platinum Enterprises, LLC are several
additional motions, improperly filed as one document.
However, because Baker is proceeding pro se, the
Court will address the motions. Baker moves to void the
default judgment entered against him for lack of jurisdiction
or as inconsistent with due process, and he also moves to
dismiss the action for insufficient service. In addition,
Baker has filed a "Writ of Error Coram Nobis" and a
"Motion for Discovery and Motion to Compel Discovery
[sic] under Rule 61."
Court notes that it previously addressed Baker's motion
to set aside the default and default judgment under Rule
60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 26)
The Court incorporates the Memorandum and Order of October
30, 2018 herein, and for the reasons stated in the order,
denies Baker's motion to void the judgment. To the extent
that Baker claims that final judgment has not been entered
such that the default judgment may be revised, the record
belies this assertion. On June 8, 2018, the Court granted
Plaintiffs' motion for entry of default judgment and
entered a final judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount
of $271,294.22. (ECF Nos. 13, 14) The judgment disposed of
all claims brought by the Plaintiffs for delinquent
contributions, liquidated damages, and accounting costs, and
the case was closed.
while Baker claims that he was not served with
Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs and
supporting affidavit, the Court notes that copies were mailed
to Defendants at the same address where Defendants were
originally served. Further, Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provides, "[n]o service is required on a
party who is in default for failing to appear." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5(a)(2). Thus, Baker was not entitled to service of
process because Baker was in default for failure to appear.
respect to Baker's motion for writ of error coram nobis,
the Court notes that coram nobis relief is available to a
movant who demonstrates "that present adverse
consequences flow from his conviction." Stewart v.
United States, 446 F.2d 42, 43 (8th Cir. 1971). Here,
the judgment against Baker is not a criminal judgment but a
civil default judgment. Thus, this motion will be denied.
Baker asks that the Court compel discovery to provide Baker
with the affidavits and exhibits filed by Plaintiffs, which
Baker contends were improperly served. As stated above, Baker
was in default for failure to appear. Service of motions and
exhibits was not required. However, the record shows that
copies of all documents were mailed to Defendants. This
action has been closed for over a year, and the Court finds
that Baker is not entitled to any further discovery in this
pending in this case are two motions filed by the Plaintiffs.
The first motion seeks to compel Defendants to produce
certain requested documents and appear for a post-judgment
deposition for a date that has now passed. (ECF No. 38) The
second motion asks the Court to enter a default judgment
against a garnishee, Nu You Contracting and Remodeling
Services, LLC. (ECF No. 39) Plaintiffs provide no federal
case law in support of the requested relief in this ERISA
action. Therefore, the Court will deny these motions without
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's
Motion to Allow Pro Se Representation of Platinum
Enterprises, LLC, Motion to Void Judgment and to Dismiss for
Insufficient Service of Process, Motion for Writ of Error
Coram Nobis, and Motion for Discovery and to Compel Discovery
(ECF No. 33) are DENIED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel the deposition of Defendants (ECF No. 38) and Motion
for Default Judgment against Garnishee Nu You Contracting
& Remodeling ...