1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION CINCINNATI

FS Management Company, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

Union Township Clermont County CIC, Inc., 

et al.,

Defendants.

 Case No. 1:17-cv-00549

Judge Michael R Barrett

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”) (Doc. 39) recommending that various motions to dismiss (Docs. 12, 13, 17, 20, 29, 30, 

34) be denied as moot. 

 The only party to object to the R&R is Defendant Rosemary Weber, who filed motions to 

dismiss both the original and amended complaints (Docs. 12, 34). Defendant Weber’s objection 

hinges on Plaintiff FS Management Company’s status as a Plaintiff in this action. By way of 

limited background, Defendant Weber moved to dismiss the original complaint at least in part 

because Plaintiff FS Management Company – a California unincorporated association –

proceeded pro se in violation of the rule that unincorporated associations may not be represented 

in federal court without a licensed attorney. (Doc. 12, PageID 62) (citing Rowland v. California 

Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S 19, 202 (1993)). To avoid dismissal, an 

amended complaint was filed pro se on October 17, 2017 by Jonathan Peak and Franklin Levy 

“removing” FS Management Company as a Plaintiff. One month later, Plaintiff Peak and 

Plaintiff Levy filed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) a notice voluntarily dismissing Defendant Weber,
2

among others. (Doc. 38). According to Defendant Weber, it is clear that the claims of Plaintiff 

Peak and Plaintiff Levy are no longer pending against her, but it is less clear whether any claims 

of Plaintiff FS Management Company remain pending because Plaintiff FS Management 

Company improperly “amend[ed] [itself] out of the action” instead of filing/seeking a formal 

dismissal. (Doc. 34, PageID 169) (citing Barnes v. First American Title, 473 F.Supp. 2d 798,

801 (N.D Ohio 2007)). As such, Defendant Weber wishes to preserve her objections to the 

R&R, to the extent that any claim of FS Management Company arguably remains pending and 

undismissed. (Doc. 42) (“If the R&R is referring to all claims raised by Peak, Levy, and FS as 

collectively being dismissed, Weber has no objections. If FS’s claims are still pending against 

Weber in this court, Weber hereby objects to the Magistrate[] [Judge’s] R&R regarding the 

denial of Weber’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) as moot.”).

 The Court agrees with Defendant Weber that a party generally cannot “amend itself out” of 

an action. To avoid any future confusion about Plaintiff FS Management Company’s status as a 

party, or the validity of its attempt to “remove” itself from this action, the Court will formally 

grant Defendants’ motions to the extent that they seek dismissal of Plaintiff FS Management

Company’s claims. See Bischoff v. Waldorf, 660 F. Supp. 2d 815, 821 (E.D. Mich. 2009)

(dismissing complaint because claims were required to be litigated by licensed attorney).

 Therefore, consistent with the above, the Court PARTIALLY ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 

39). Specifically, the Motions (Docs. 12, 13, 17, 20) are GRANTED, and the claims of Plaintiff 

FS Management Company are DISMISSED. To the extent that Plaintiff FS Management 

Company attempted to amend its claims against Defendants via the amended complaint, such 

amendment failed to remedy Plaintiff FS Management Company’s pro se status. Accordingly,

Defendants’ motions (Docs. 29, 30, 34) are GRANTED with respect to any claims of Plaintiff 
3 

FS Management Company, and (per the magistrate judge’s reasoning) DENIED AS MOOT

with respect to the claims of Plaintiff Peak and Plaintiff Levy. No claims remain pending in this 

action, so the case is TERMINATED from the docket of this Court. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

________________________ 

Hon. Michael R. Barrett 

United States District Judge

s/ Michael R. Barrett