1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SIMPLY L TRUCKING LLC,

Plaintiff,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

v. Case No. 3:22-cv-02305-S-BT

FEDEX FREIGHT, INC., FEDEX 

CORPORATION, LIBERTY 

MUTUAL INSURANCE, and 

DONALD BRIGANCE,

Defendants.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff Simply L Trucking LLC (SLT) brought this 

civil action for damages resulting from an alleged accident caused by a driver who 

worked for FedEx Freight Inc. Mr. Lenny M. Kakai signed the complaint on behalf 

of SLT. Compl. (ECF No. 3). But Mr. Kakai is not a licensed attorney. Accordingly, 

the Court entered an Order on October 17, noting that business associations such 

as SLT must be represented in federal court by a licensed attorney and cannot 

appear pro se through an owner or officer. See Order 1 (ECF No. 5). The Court gave 

SLT until November 17, to retain a licensed attorney to represent it and 

admonished SLT that “[i]f a licensed attorney permitted to practice before this 

Court does not file a written appearance with the Clerk of Court on or before 

November 17, 2022, the Court may dismiss SLT’s complaint without further 

notice.” See Order 2.

Case 3:22-cv-02305-S-BT Document 7 Filed 11/29/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 13
2

“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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. But while pro 

se individuals may proceed under this statute, a business association “as a fictional 

legal person can only be represented by licensed counsel.” In re K.M.A., Inc., 652 

F.2d 398, 399 (5th Cir. Unit B July 1981). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41

provides that “[a] district court may dismiss an action for failure of a plaintiff to 

prosecute or to comply with any order of the court.” McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 

F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Further, a District Court may 

dismiss an action sua sponte through its inherent authority without a motion by 

the defendant. Id. “[T]he appropriate measure for a judge to take when confronted 

with an unrepresented corporation is inherently discretionary.” Memon v. Allied 

Domecq QSR, 385 F.3d 871, 873 (5th Cir. 2004). For instance, the Fifth Circuit has 

noted that courts have dismissed claims with prejudice or struck pleadings after 

“expressly warn[ing] the corporation that it must retain counsel or formally 

order[ing] it to do so.” Id. at 874 (noting further other courts have dismissed cases 

without prejudice).

Here, the Court expressly ordered SLT to retain a licensed attorney to 

represent it. See Order 1. SLT failed to timely comply with that order. Indeed, SLT 

failed to respond to Court in any manner. In the interests of justice and because 

“dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction that deprives a litigant of the 

opportunity to pursue his claim,” the Court recommends dismissing this case

Case 3:22-cv-02305-S-BT Document 7 Filed 11/29/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 14
3

without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for SLT’s failure to comply with the order to 

retain a licensed attorney to represent it. Id.; see JKD Holdings, LLC v. Prison 

Litig. Reform Act, 2021 WL 2044316, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. May 10, 2021) (Ramirez, 

J.), adopted by 2021 WL 2042689 (N.D. Tex. May 21, 2021).

SO RECOMMENDED.

November 29, 2022.

______________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in 

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report 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 report 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 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 

Svcs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:22-cv-02305-S-BT Document 7 Filed 11/29/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 15