SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A. v. JACKSON HEWITT INC.

Case No. 2:17-cv-24-FtM-38CM.

SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons Plaintiff, v. JACKSON HEWITT INC., JACKSON HEWITT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC, ASTRO TAX SERVICES LLC, JOHN DOES 1-5 and NAVEEN MATHUR, Defendants.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division.

Editors Note
Cause: Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Ross M. Good , Anderson & Wanca.

Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Ryan M. Kelly , Anderson & Wanca.

Jackson Hewitt Inc., Defendant, represented by Dale A. Evans, Jr. , Locke Lord, LLP, Michael Peter De Simone , Locke Lord, LLP & Thomas Justin Cunningham , Locke Lord, LLP.

Jackson Hewitt Technology Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Dale A. Evans, Jr. , Locke Lord, LLP, Michael Peter De Simone , Locke Lord, LLP & Thomas Justin Cunningham , Locke Lord, LLP.

Astro Tax Services LLC, Defendant, Pro Se.


ORDER

CAROL MIRANDO, Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon review of Astro Tax Services LLC's letter response to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint (Doc. 21) filed on February 6, 2017. Because the letter requests that this action be dismissed, the Court construes it as a motion to dismiss. Id. Although Naveen Mathur is named as an individual defendant, he has signed the letter on behalf of Astro Tax Services LLC's. Id. It does not appear that Naveen Mathur has filed a response on his behalf.

According to Local Rule 2.03(e), a corporation may only appear and be heard through counsel admitted to practice in the Court pursuant to Local Rules 2.01 or 2.02. A corporation can never appear pro se. Obermaier v. Driscoll, No. 2:00-cv-214-FtM-29D, 2000 WL 33175446, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2000). Because Astro Tax Services LLC is a corporate Defendant, it must be represented by counsel.

In accordance with Local Rule 2.03(e), the instant motion is denied without prejudice. Astro Tax Services LLC shall have up to and including March 6, 2017 to cause a Notice of Appearance be filed by the attorney to represent it and to respond to Plaintiff's operative complaint.1 Astro Tax Services LLC is cautioned that absent a further extension upon a showing of good cause or excusable neglect,2 failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions, including entry of a Clerk's default and default judgment against it.

Furthermore, in an abundance of cation and because the individual Defendant Naveen Mathur seems to be appearing pro se, the Court will sua sponte extend his deadline to respond to the operative complaint up to and including March 6, 2017. Similarly, Naveen Mathur is cautioned that failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions, including entry of a Clerk's default and default judgment against him.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. Astro Tax Services LLC's letter response to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint (Doc. 21) filed on February 6, 2017, which the Court construes as a motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. 2. Astro Tax Services LLC shall have up to and including March 6, 2017 to cause a Notice of Appearance be filed by the attorney to represent it and to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint. 3. Individual Defendant Naveen Mathur shall have up to and including March 6, 2017 to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on February 10, 2017. Doc. 22.
2. Rule 6, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires a showing of good cause when a party files a motion for extension of time before the original time or its extension expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Rule 6 "requires a showing of `excusable neglect' for an extension of a passed deadline." Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Ace Elec. Serv., Inc., 648 F.Supp.2d 1371, 1375 (M.D. Fla. 2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases