United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JANIE S. MAYERON, Magistrate Judge.
The above matter came on before the undersigned upon Defendant United Credit Recovery LLC's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint filed on June 8, 2015 [Docket No. 66]. This Answer was not signed by any party representing defendant United Credit Recovery LLC.
On November 7, 2014, plaintiff filed the Complaint in this case. [Docket No. 1]. The Summons and Complaint was served on United Credit Recovery, LLC, ("UCR") and Leonard Potillo ("Potillo") on February 23 and 24, 2015, respectively. [Docket Nos. 20, 21]. On April 6, 2015, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. [Docket No. 22]. The Summons and Amended Complaint was served on UCR and Potillo on April 7 and 9, 2015, respectively. [Docket Nos. 29, 31]. An answer or response to the Amended Complaint was due by UCR on April 28, 2015, and by Potillo on April 30, 2015. No answer or other response was served by UCR and Potillo by these dates. Consequently, on May 2, 2015, plaintiff applied for an entry of default against UCR, Potillo, and Wilbur Tate, III (another defendant who had failed to respond to the Amended Complaint). [Docket Nos. 35-39]. On May 5, 2015, the Clerk entered an entry of Default against UCR, Potillo and Wilbur Tate, III. [Docket No. 40]. On May 6, 2015, defendants Potillo and UCR filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint. This motion was received and filed by the Clerk of Court on May 7, 2015 [Docket Nos. 44, 45], which was granted by Order dated May 14, 2015 [Docket No. 48]. In this Order, Potillo and UCR were advised that:
A corporation may not proceed pro se in this district. See Ackra Direct Marketing Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 857 (8th Cir. 1996). Failure of United Credit Recovery, LLC to obtain counsel may result in a judgment against it.
Id. p. 3.
On June 8, 2015, defendant Potillo filed an Answer [Docket No. 65], and an Answer was filed by UCR [Docket No. 66]. The Answer filed by UCR was not signed by a lawyer and no lawyer has entered an appearance on behalf of UCR.
For the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that United Credit Recovery, LLC's Answer [Docket No. 66] be stricken as a corporation cannot ...