Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 F. App'x 133

Pritchard v. Lubman

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided September 25, 2001

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2001-09-25

Cited by 5 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2013

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1654

Relies on Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority · National Independent Theatre Exhibitors, Inc. v. Buena Vista Distribution Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-09-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 In these consolidated appeals, Joseph Pritchard appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing his appeals from the bankruptcy court’s orders approving the trustee’s final amended report. The notices of appeal were filed by Pritchard as president of Tamojira, Inc., the debtor in the underlying bankruptcy. Although 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (1994) permits parties to conduct their own litigation, it is well set- *134 tied that a corporation must be represented by an attorney in federal court. National Indep. Theatre Exhibitors v. Buena Vista Distrib., 748 F.2d 602, 609 (11th Cir.1984) (corporate officer could not bring pro se action on behalf of corporation); Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 722 F.2d 20, 22 (2d Cir .1983). Accordingly, because Tamojira, Inc., is not represented by licensed counsel, we grant the Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as moot Pritchard’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s May 30, 2001, order because his response was filed and has been fully considered. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

¶2 DISMISSED.

/20/fappx/133 · .json · Public domain