IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

CHANTOVIA JACKSON, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

 § 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-1687-N-BN 

 § 

CHICK AND SEAFOOD INC., ET AL., § 

 § 

Defendants. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

In this employment action, raising claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 

and the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Court granted counsel’s motions for leave to 

withdraw as attorney of record for Defendants Chick and Seafood Inc. (CSI), Grand 

HBL, LLC (Grand HBL), and Linda Henderson. See Dkt. Nos. 32-35. 

Chief United States District Judge David C. Godbey then referred this action 

to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management under 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b). See Dkt. No. 36. 

And, on August 14, 2023, the Court entered an Order Requiring Defendants to 

Retain Counsel or Risk Default [Dkt. No. 37], explaining: 

Henderson, as an individual, may proceed pro se. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1654 (“In 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.”). 

But CSI (a Texas corporation) and Grand HBL (a Texas limited 

liability company) may not. Each, “as a fictional legal person,” may “only 

be represented by licensed counsel.” Donovan v. Road Rangers Country 

Junction, Inc., 736 F.2d 1004, 1005 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (“The 

‘clear’ rule is ‘that a corporation as a fictional legal person can only be 

Case 3:22-cv-01687-N-BN Document 38 Filed 10/13/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID 209
- 2 - 

represented by licensed counsel.’” (quoting K.M.A., Inc. v. Gen. Motors 

Acceptance Corp., 652 F.2d 398, 399 (5th Cir. 1982))); see also Rowland 

v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-

02 (1993) (“[L]ower courts have uniformly held that 28 U.S.C. § 1654 ... 

does not allow corporations, partnerships, or associations to appear in 

federal court otherwise than by licensed counsel”). 

The Court therefore ORDERS CSI and Grand HBL to retain new 

counsel and direct their counsel to enter an appearance on the record by 

September 14, 2023. 

Should CSI and Grand HBL fail to timely do so, as ordered, each 

defendant will risk being in default. That is, while “the appropriate 

measure for a judge to take when confronted with an unrepresented 

corporation [or limited liability company] is inherently discretionary,” 

Memon v. Allied Domecq QSR, 385 F.3d 871, 873 (5th Cir. 2004), when 

a corporation or limited liability company declines or fails to hire counsel 

to represent it, the Court may properly strike its defenses, if it is a 

defendant, see Donovan, 736 F.2d at 1005 (holding district court 

properly struck defenses of corporate defendant who declined to hire 

counsel). 

Other courts have found default judgment to be the appropriate 

remedy when a corporation fails, after court warning, to appoint counsel. 

See PalWeb Corp. v. Vimonta AG, No. 3:00-cv-1388-P, 2003 WL 

21992488, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug.19, 2003) (entering a final judgment 

against the defendant, a Swiss company, and finding that the defendant 

had been validly served; that the defendant entered its appearance 

through counsel; that counsel was allowed to withdraw by order of the 

court; that the court ordered the defendant to obtain substitute counsel 

(licensed to practice in the court’s jurisdiction) on two occasions; and 

that no attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction had entered an 

appearance on the defendant’s behalf; and that defendant was therefore 

in default); see also Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Obodoechina, Civ. A. 

No. 08-3258, 2009 WL 424326, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Feb.19, 2009) (“When a 

business is without counsel, it is appropriate to instruct the business 

that it must retain counsel. If, after sufficient time to obtain counsel, 

there is no appearance by counsel, judgment may be entered against the 

business entity by default.”). 

Id. at 1-3 (emphasis in original). 

It is now almost one month past the court-ordered deadline for CSI and Grand 

HBL to retain new counsel and direct their counsel to enter an appearance on the 

record. Neither defendant followed the Court’s directive in the sufficient time 

Case 3:22-cv-01687-N-BN Document 38 Filed 10/13/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID 210
- 3 - 

allowed. And neither can continue to proceed unrepresented by counsel in this case. 

In addition, although CSI, Grand HBL, and Henderson previously filed 

answers in this case, see Dkt. Nos. 8, 13, & 28, none have responded to the operative 

complaint, the Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 31], filed July 31, 2023. So all 

three defendants appear to be technically in default. 

Even so, only CSI and Grand HBL have failed to follow an order of the Court 

and, as a result, have prevented the prosecution of this case by being unrepresented 

by counsel. Cf. JMC Constr. LP v. Modular Space Corp., No. 3:07-cv-1925-B, 2008 WL 

4531819 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2008) (collecting authority for the proposition “that 

‘[d]efault judgments are a drastic remedy, not favored by the Federal Rules and 

resorted to by courts only in extreme situations’”; observing that, “[w]hile it is true 

that Defendants did not file an answer in response to the amended complaint, the 

history of the case shows Defendant has made an appearance in the case and has 

shown its intent to defend against all of Plaintiff’s claims”; and denying motion for 

entry of default judgment (quoting Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & Sav. 

Ass’n, 874 F.2d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 1989); citations omitted)). 

And the undersigned has considered the imposition of alternate sanctions 

short of striking CSI and Grand HBL’s defenses and entering defaults. But, 

considering all the circumstances, the undersigned finds that lesser sanctions would 

not serve the interests of justice or advance the disposition of this case on the merits. 

If, however, during the 14-day period to file objections to these findings, 

conclusions, and recommendation, CSI and Grand HBL retain counsel who makes an 

Case 3:22-cv-01687-N-BN Document 38 Filed 10/13/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID 211
- 4 - 

appearance in this action, the undersigned will withdraw the recommendations set 

out below. 

Recommendation

The Court should (1) order that Defendant Chick and Seafood Inc.’s answer 

[Dkt. No. 8] and Defendant Grand HBL, LLC’s answer [Dkt. No. 21] be stricken; (2) 

order that both Defendants Chick and Seafood Inc. and Grand HBL, LLC are in 

default; (3) direct the Clerk of Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

55(a), to enter default against Defendants Chick and Seafood Inc. and Grand HBL, 

LLC; and (4) order that Plaintiff Chantovia Jackson move, by no later than a date 30 

days from the date of entry of any order accepting or adopting this recommendation, 

for default judgment against Defendants Chick and Seafood Inc. and Grand HBL, 

LLC for failure to appear by and through counsel. 

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections 

within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.

P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or 

recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and 

specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation 

where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure 

to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the 

Case 3:22-cv-01687-N-BN Document 38 Filed 10/13/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID 212
- 5 - 

factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or 

adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996). 

DATED: October 13, 2023 

 _________________________________________ 

DAVID L. HORAN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-01687-N-BN Document 38 Filed 10/13/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID 213