In the United States Court of Federal Claims

14-1202

Filed: February 2, 2017 

****************************************

*

*

RMA ENGINEERING S.A.R.L. d/b/a/ *

RMV ARCHITECTS, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

*

****************************************

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On January 11, 2017, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a Motion To Withdraw Legal 

Representation, because his client “fai[ed] substantially to fulfill an obligation to [Counsel] 

regarding [Counsel’s] services,” and requested leave to withdraw from representation. ECF No. 

25 at 1 (citing ABA MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT RULE 1.6). On January 23, 2017, the 

Government filed a Response stating that it did not oppose the January 11, 2017 Motion, but 

requested that the court stay discovery until Plaintiff retained new counsel. ECF No 26 at 2. 

On January 30, 2017, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order, explaining that,

under the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) the court could not grant 

the January 11, 2017 Motion, because: (1) Plaintiff’s Counsel did not provide proof of service of 

the January 11, 2017 Motion to Plaintiff, and (2) Plaintiff could not appear in the United States 

Court of Federal Claims pro se, because, as a “French limited liability company in partnership,” 

Plaintiff is an “entity” that may not appear without counsel. See 1/30/2017 Order, ECF No. 27, at 

1–2; see also RCFC 83.1(a)(3)( “An individual who is not an attorney may represent oneself or a 

member of one’s immediate family, but may not represent a corporation, an entity, or any other 

person in any proceeding before [the] court.”) (emphasis added); Talasila, Inc. v. United States, 

240 F.3d 1064, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[An entity] must be represented by counsel in order to 

pursue its claim against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims.”). 

On January 31, 2017, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a Response To Court’s Opinion Requiring 

Proof Of Service, attaching, as Exhibit A, a January 11, 2017 e-mail from Plaintiff’s Counsel to a 

representative of Plaintiff containing a copy of the January 11, 2017 Motion. ECF No. 29 Ex A. 

Rules of the United States Court 

of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) 41

(Dismissal of Actions), 83.1 

(Withdrawing Counsel).
2

Because Plaintiff may not appear in the United States Court of Federal Claims pro se, 

Plaintiff is ordered to write a letter to the court, wherein Plaintiff will explain whether it intends to 

substitute new counsel or otherwise dismiss the December 15, 2014 Complaint. See RCFC 

83.1(a)(3). 

If Plaintiff does not retain new counsel within 30 days of this Memorandum Opinion and 

Order, the court will dismiss the December 15, 2014 Complaint. See RCFC 41(b) (“If the plaintiff 

fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, the court may dismiss on its own 

motion[.]”); see also Talasila, 240 F.3d at 1067 (affirming the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’ dismissal of a complaint filed by a corporation because the corporation could not appear 

pro se). 

The Clerk’s Office is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to 

Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Susan G. Braden

SUSAN G. BRADEN

Judge