Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00693/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00693-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Court takes judicial notice of the information in the Arizona Corporation

Commission's public records listing the "Office of the Administrator, of the Order of

Franklin, House" as a corporation sole with Cleo Lewis as its statutory agent and sole officer.

See MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986) ("On a motion to

dismiss, we may take judicial notice of matters of public record outside the pleadings.").

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cleo Lewis, Office of the Administrator of

the Order of Franklin, House of Lewis,

Temple Alliance Fellowship, a

Corporation Sole, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Fred Martin, Laura Christine Martin,

Martin Matters 40N, LLC, United States

of America, Susanne J. Collins, Abe

Reyes, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-0693-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant United States of America's ("Defendant")

Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (5), and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (Doc. 9). The Court now rules on the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a corporation sole captioned in this case as Cleo Lewis, Office of the

Administrator of the Order of Franklin, House of Lewis, Temple Alliance Fellowship.1

 Cleo

Case 2:05-cv-00693-SRB Document 16 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Although not entirely clear from the pleadings, it appears that Cleo Lewis filed suit

as the corporation and not on her own behalf. This understanding is further confirmed by the

Arizona statute governing corporations sole which states: "[t]he person comprising the

corporation sole is the only director and officer for the corporation sole unless the bylaws of

the corporation sole contain a contrary designation." Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-11908(A). Thus,

Cleo Lewis, the corporation's only director and officer, comprises the corporation and

brought suit as the corporation.

- 2 -

Lewis, the corporation's only officer and statutory agent, filed suit in Maricopa County

Superior Court to quiet title to certain real property "commonly known as 40 N. Gilbert Rd.,

Gilbert, Arizona . . . ." (Compl. ¶ 4.) On March 4, 2005, Defendant removed the action to

this Court and filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. Defendant argues, among other things,

that the Complaint must be dismissed because Plaintiff2

 is a corporation and is not

represented by a licensed attorney.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

28 U.S.C. § 1654 provides that "[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may

plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts,

respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein." The Supreme Court has

recognized that, "save in a few aberrant cases, the lower courts have uniformly held that 28

U.S.C. § 1654 "does not allow corporations, partnerships, or associations to appear in federal

court otherwise than through a licensed attorney." Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S.

194, 202, 113 S. Ct. 716, 721 (1993). See also United States v. High Country Broad. Co.,

Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) ("A corporation may appear in federal court only

through licensed counsel.") (citing Rowland, 506 U.S. at 202, 113 S. Ct. at 721). 

Here, Plaintiff is a corporation sole and may not appear in this Court without a

licensed attorney. Rowland, 506 U.S. at 202, 113 S. Ct. at 721. Plaintiff appears to concede

that Lewis is not an attorney when it argues that Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed in

federal court without an attorney because the suit was originally filed in state court where the

"rules arguably permit the Plaintiff as the Administrator to proceed as the Administrator

without being an attorney." (Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss at 2.) Therefore, the Court

Case 2:05-cv-00693-SRB Document 16 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

will presume that Lewis not a licensed attorney, and Plaintiff must obtain licensed counsel

in order to proceed with this action. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismiss this case

without prejudice in 40 days, unless prior to that date an attorney admitted to practice in this

District files a Notice of Appearance. At this juncture, the Court need not determine the

merits of Defendant's claims of improper service, lack of jurisdiction, or failure to state a

claim.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be granted (Doc. 9), and

this case will be dismissed without further notice on December 27, 2005, unless prior to that

date a Notice of Appearance is filed by counsel. If no Notice of Appearance of counsel is

filed on or before December 27, 2005, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing

Plaintiff's case without prejudice.

DATED this 14th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00693-SRB Document 16 Filed 11/15/05 Page 3 of 3