UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

G & G CLOSED-CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 14-12982

MACEDONIAN ENTERPRISES, INC. 

D/B/A JB’S NIGHTCLUB AND JAMES 

BROWN, Jointly and Severally,

Defendants.

/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND

CONSTRUING RESPONSE TO THE ALLEGATIONS AS AN ANSWER 

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JAMES BROWN

On July 30, 2014, Plaintiff G & G Closed-Circuit Events, LLC filed a complaint

against Defendants Macedonian Enterprises, Inc. (“Macedonian”) and James D. Brown,

seeking damages for (1) unauthorized publication or use of communications in violation

of 47 U.S.C. § 605 et seq., (2) unauthorized interceptions, receptions, publications,

divulgence, display, and/or exhibition of a television program in violation of 47 U.S.C. §

553 et seq., and (3) common law conversion. (Dkt. # 1, Pg. ID 1-8.) After being served

with the Summons and Complaint, Brown sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel dated

September 30, 2014. (Dkt. # 6.) Plaintiff’s counsel forwarded the letter to the Clerk of

the Court, and the letter was entered on the docket on October 10, 2014 as “Response

to the Allegations.” (Id.) The letter responds to some of the allegations contained in the

complaint—for example, it denies the existence of certain entities mentioned in the

complaint and states that Brown’s bar never special ordered a “fight night” television

program. (Dkt. # 6, Pg. ID 19.) 

2:14-cv-12982-RHC-DRG Doc # 8 Filed 02/03/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 32
Now before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer to Complaint, which

argues that the court should strike the Response to Allegations because it does not

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(d)(2), 10(a) and 10(b), Eastern

District of Michigan Local Rule 5.1(a)(1),and Sixth Circuit precedent prohibiting

corporations from representation by nonlawyers. Doherty v. Am. Motors Corp., 728

F.2d 334, 340 (6th Cir. 1984). (Dkt. # 7, Pg. ID 23-30.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 provides that the rules “should be construed

and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every

action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Consistent with this directive, pro se

pleadings “are to be held ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers,’ and should therefore be liberally construed.” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380,

383 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004). Rule

5(d)(2) requires that “[a] paper is filed by delivering it: (A) to the clerk; or (B) to a judge

who agrees to accept it for filing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(2). Here, Brown sent the

Response to Plaintiff’s counsel who, in turn, delivered it to the clerk. Because the

responsive pleading was ultimately delivered to the clerk, the court finds the filing

consistent with a liberal construction of Rule 5(d)(2).

Rule 10(a) provides that “[e]very pleading must have a caption with the court's

name, a title, a file number, and a Rule 7(a) designation,” and Rule 10(b) provides that

“A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far

as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a), (b). Additionally,

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 5.1(a)(1) provides that all filings must include the

name of the court, the title and number of the case, the name of the paper, the name of

2

2:14-cv-12982-RHC-DRG Doc # 8 Filed 02/03/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 33
the district judge, and the contact information of the attorney or pro se party. E.D. Mich.

L. R. 5.1(a)(1). The Response does not contain a caption or all of the information

required under Local Rule 5.1(a)(1). However, it is clear that the letter was in response

to Plaintiff’s complaint in the instant case, as evidenced by Plaintiff’s concession that

“Plaintiff’s Counsel construed this letter to be an Answer to the Complaint, and

forwarded it to the Court Clerk.” (Dkt. # 7, Pg. ID 24.) Second, the Response is

approximately one full page and is broken into short, clear paragraphs. Five of these

paragraphs offer substantive responses to Plaintiff’s complaint. Although these

paragraphs are not numbered, as required under Rule 10(b), the lack of numbers does

no perceivable harm to the clarity of the letter. While the Response did not contain all of

the information or formatting required under the Federal Rules and local rules, the

required information was readily apparent to both Plaintiff and the court. Accordingly,

the court finds that the pro se Response sufficiently complies with a liberal construction

of Rules 10(a) and (b) and E.D. Mich. L. R. 5.1(a)(1). 

Brown’s letter begins, “This is in response to the allegations against me as an

individual and also my company.” (Dkt. # 6, Pg. ID 19.) Under Sixth Circuit precedent,

“a corporation cannot appear in federal court except through an attorney.” Doherty, 728

F.2d at 340 (citing Ginger v. Cohn, 426 F.2d 1385, 1386 (6th Cir. 1970); United States

v. 9.19 Acres of Land, 416 F.2d 1244, 1245 (6th Cir. 1989)). Brown has not entered an

appearance as counsel for Macedonian, and there is nothing in the record suggesting

that Brown is an attorney. Because Brown is not Macedonian’s counsel, he may not file

an Answer on the corporation’s behalf in federal court. The court will, therefore,

3

2:14-cv-12982-RHC-DRG Doc # 8 Filed 02/03/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 34
construe the Response to the Allegations as an Answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on behalf

of Brown, but not on behalf of Macedonian. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer to Complaint (Dkt. # 7) is

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Response to the Allegations (Dkt. # 6) is

construed as an Answer on behalf of James Brown. Furthermore, the Response to the

Allegations (Dkt. # 6) is not construed as an Answer on behalf of Macedonian

Enterprises, Inc.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 3, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, February 3, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\14-12982.GGCLOSED.MotionStrike.dmi.wpd

4

2:14-cv-12982-RHC-DRG Doc # 8 Filed 02/03/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 35