IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

GREAT SOUTHLAND LIMITED, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. Civil Action 2:17-cv-719 

 Judge Sarah D. Morrison 

 Magistrate Judge Jolson 

LANDASH CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

On February 11, 2020, the Court directed Defendants Giant Tyres USA, LLC; Midwest 

Coal, LLC; A&B Retreading, LLC; Adkins Tire, LLC; Elephant OTR, LLC; Rebekah Holding; 

and Knight Nguyen Investments to obtain counsel, noting that corporations may appear in 

federal court only if represented by licensed counsel. (Doc. 112 at 1–2). Further, because Great 

Southland Limited, XPO Logistics, Inc., and Fox, Byrd & Company, P.C., represented that 

Defendants Jason Adkins and Rebekah Adkins have been unresponsive to their requests to meet 

and confer, the Court ordered Jason and Rebekah Adkins to show cause within 30 days for 

failing to comply with the Court’s meet and confer directive. (Id. at 2). 

 Defendants failed to respond to the show cause order. So, on April 6, 2020, the 

Undersigned afforded them one more opportunity to show cause within thirty (30) days, warning 

that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that they be found in default. (Doc. 128). 

That deadline has passed, and again, none of the above-named Defendants have responded to the 

Case: 2:17-cv-00719-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 152 Filed: 06/24/20 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 2125
2 

Court’s show cause order. Further, the order was returned as undeliverable as to Defendants 

Midwest Coal, LLC and Knight Nguyen Investments. 

The corporate Defendants, Giant Tyres USA, LLC; Midwest Coal, LLC; A&B 

Retreading, LLC; Adkins Tire, LLC; Elephant OTR, LLC; Rebekah Holding; and Knight 

Nguyen Investments, remain unrepresented in this case. As already explained, “[t]he law is 

well-settled that a corporation may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel and 

not through the pro se representation of an officer, agent, or shareholder.” Nat’l Labor Relations 

Bd. v. Consol. Food Servs., Inc., 81 F. App’x 13, 15 (6th Cir. 2003). “This rule also applies to 

limited liability corporations.” Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Mich. Resin Reps., LLC, No. 11-

13335, 2013 WL 1799858, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2013), report and recommendation adopted 

sub nom. Barrette Outdoor Living v. Mich. Resin Reps., LLC, No. 11-13335, 2013 WL 1800356 

(E.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2013) (citations omitted). 

Though the Undersigned has considered sanctions short of default, because these 

Defendants cannot appear as a pro se entities, and moreover, have been given multiple 

opportunities to secure counsel, “a less drastic remedy does not appear appropriate.” Id. 

(recommending that LLC defendant be found in default for failing to secure counsel). As for 

Defendants Jason Adkins and Rebekah Adkins, the Court finds that their failure to participate in 

this case, despite multiple warnings, “evidences willfulness sufficient to warrant the sanction of 

default judgment.” Davis v. Ivy, No. 11-CV-10803, 2013 WL 1505431, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 

12, 2013). 

 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that default judgment be entered against 

Defendants Giant Tyres USA, LLC; Midwest Coal, LLC; A&B Retreading, LLC; Adkins Tire, 

Case: 2:17-cv-00719-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 152 Filed: 06/24/20 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 2126
3 

LLC; Elephant OTR, LLC; Rebekah Holding; Knight Nguyen Investments; Jason Adkins; and 

Rebekah Adkins in an amount to be determined by the District Court upon further submissions. 

Procedure on Objections 

 If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within 

fourteen (14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to 

those specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with 

supporting authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations 

to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further 

evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report 

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of 

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: June 24, 2020 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson 

 KIMBERLY A. JOLSON 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case: 2:17-cv-00719-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 152 Filed: 06/24/20 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 2127