Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03519/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03519-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

*

 The defendants are not participating in this appeal. Thus, the appeal is submitted

on the appellant’s brief and the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 14, 2010*

Decided April 14, 2010

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

 RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

 TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 09-3519

P.H. INTERNATIONAL TRADING

COMPANY, d/b/a HANA K.

FASHIONS

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHRISTIA CONFEZIONI S.p.A., et al.

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 04 C 903

David H. Coar,

Judge.

O R D E R

P.H. International Trading Company, doing business as Hana K. Fashions (“Hana

K.”), is a New York corporation. Hana K., a coat boutique in the Chicago area owned by

Hana and Pierre Lang, was unsuccessful in its breach-of-contract suit against Christia

Confezioni S.p.A. (“Christia”), an Italian manufacturer of high-end clothing. The Langs’

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-3519 Document: 11 Filed: 04/14/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09-3519 Page 2

subsequent pro se motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to challenge the final

judgment was also unsuccessful, and they appeal. Because the Langs—as pro se

litigants—may not represent Hana K. in federal court, we dismiss the appeal.

This case arose from a contract suit that Hana K. filed in 2003 against Christia; 

FBLGINC Corporation, a Canadian coat distributor with whom Christia entered a contract

in 2002; and FBLG Incorporated, a Delaware corporation that does Internet marketing. 

After the district court applied Italian law and granted summary judgment for the

defendants, Hana K. moved, unsuccessfully, to vacate the ruling. Hana K.’s subsequent

appeal to this court was dismissed for lack of prosecution. See CIR. R. 31(c)(2); P.H. Int’l

Trading Co. v. Christia Confezioni S.p.A., et al., No. 07-3690 (7th Cir. June 17, 2008).

In September 2009, Hana and Pierre Lang, now proceeding pro se on behalf of Hana

K., moved the district court under Rule 60 to vacate summary judgment based on “new”

evidence of Italian law. The court treated the motion as one under Rule 60(b)(2) and denied

it, finding that the evidence had been previously available and that the motion was

untimely. The Langs then filed a motion to reconsider under Rule 60(b)(6), offering the

same information presented in their previous Rule 60 motion; this motion was also denied.

On appeal the Langs reassert in general terms that the district court has erred

throughout these proceedings by ignoring the applicable Italian law. The Langs, however,

may not represent Hana K. in a legal capacity; only a lawyer may litigate in federal court on

behalf of a corporation. See United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579, 581 (7th Cir. 2009); Old

Ben Coal Co. v. Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 476 F.3d 418, 418-19 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Accordingly, we must DISMISS this appeal.

Case: 09-3519 Document: 11 Filed: 04/14/2010 Pages: 2