# 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 A ND ORDER

O n 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] regard ing [Counsel’s] services,” and requested leave to withdraw from representation

. ECF No. 25 at 1 (citing ABA M ODEL R ULES OF P ROF ’ L C ONDUCT R ULE 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 tha t

, under the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ( “RC FC ”) the court could not grant the January 11, 2017 Motion

, because: ( 1) Plaintiff ’ s Counsel did not provide proof of s ervice of the January 11, 2017 Motion to Plaintiff, and (2) Plaintiff could not a ppear in the United Sta t es 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 at torney may represent oneself or a member of one’ s immediate family, but may not represent a corporation, an ent ity, or any other person in any proceeding before [the] court

. ” ) (emphasis added); Talasila, Inc. v. U n ited States

, 240 F.3d 1064, 1066 (Fed. C ir. 2001) ( “[An entity] must be represented by counsel in order to pursue its claim against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. ”).

O n Jan uary 31, 2017, Plaintiff ’ s Counsel filed a Response To Court ’ s Opinion Requirin g Proof Of Service, attaching, as Exhibit A, a January 11, 2017 e

- mail from Plaintiff ’ s C ounsel to a representative of Plaintiff containing a copy of the January 11, 2017 Motion

. ECF No. 29 Ex A. Rule s of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) 41
(Dismissal of Actions)

, 83.1
(Withdrawing Counsel).2

Because Plaintiff m ay not appear in the United States Court of Federal Claims pro se , Plaintiff is orde red to write a letter to the court, wherein Plaintiff will e xplain whether it intends to

substitute new counsel or otherwise dismiss t he 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 c ourt 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 106 7 ( 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