2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-21-2012

Keith Dougherty v. Jonathan Snyder

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-2631

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Keith Dougherty v. Jonathan Snyder" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1257.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1257
BLD-115 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2631

___________

KEITH DOUGHERTY; DOCSON CONSULTING LLC

(a single member LLC); KEITH DOUGHERTY INSURANCE AND 

CONSULTING (sole proprietor); JEAN BRADY (Partner);

KENNETH BRADY, 1099 Misc employee president of CUC of MD Inc.,

 Appellants

v.

JONATHAN SNYDER, individually and in his official capacity as BCO and Zoning 

Enforcement Officer; DUSTIN GROVE, individually and in his official capacity as 

Board Member; WILLIAM TOLLINGER, individually and in his official capacity as 

Board Member; ROBERT BARCLAY, individually and in his official capacity as Board 

Member; KERRIE EBAUGH, individually and in her official capacity as Township 

Secretary/Treasurer; STEPHEN LINEBAUGH, individually and in his official capacity 

as presiding Judge; PAMELA S. LEE, individually and in her official capacity as Civil 

Prothonotary; J. ROBERT CHUCK, Individually and in his official capacity as Court 

Administrator; JOHN DOE(s) individually and in their official capacity as authors of Per 

Curiam opinions 553 CD 2007, 317 MD 2007, 1450 CD 2008, 629 CD 2009, 1200 CCD 

2009; NORTH HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP; UNNAMED INSURANCE CARRIERS;

DARELL N. VANORMER, JR.; MELANIE R. BRADY; JOSEPH C. ADAMS; 

DARRELL N. VANORMER, JR.; CHIEF INSPECTOR MICHAEL GENSEMER

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 10-cv-01071)

District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell

____________________________________

Submitted on Motions for Summary Action Pursuant to 

Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 Filed By Appellees 

J. Robert Chuck, John Doe(s), Honorable Stephen P. 

Linebaugh, Darrell N. VanOrmer, Jr., and Jonathan Snyder
2

February 16, 2012

Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 21, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

On December 2, 2011, we granted the motion for summary affirmance filed by 

defendants/appellees Dustin Grove, William Tollinger, Robert Barclay, Kerrie Ebaugh 

and North Hopewell Township. Those defendants argued that summary affirmance was 

appropriate as to all other defendants as well. Three more groups of defendants have 

since filed their own motions for summary affirmance. The motion filed by defendant 

Darrell N. VanOrmer, Jr., also requests that we summarily affirm the District Court’s 

judgment in its entirety. Appellant Keith Dougherty has filed numerous responses to all 

of these motions. 

On consideration of the parties’ filings, we agree that summary affirmance of the 

District Court’s judgment is appropriate as to all defendants. Accordingly, we will now 

affirm the judgment of the District Court in its entirety. We do so primarily for the 

reasons thoroughly and adequately explained by the District Court in its relevant orders 

and opinions, including those entered November 5, 2010 (dismissing claims of 

unrepresented plaintiffs), May 16, 2011 (dismissing the amended complaint), and July 

12, 2011 (denying reconsideration). 

We write to address only one issue. Appellant Keith Dougherty, who is not a 
3

lawyer, purported to assert claims pro se on behalf of his single-member Pennsylvania 

limited liability company, Docson Consulting LLC (“Docson Consulting”). The District 

Court dismissed those claims on November 5, 2010, on the ground that Docson 

Consulting must be represented by counsel in federal court. Dougherty once again 

purports to represent Docson Consulting pro se on appeal. On August 5, 2011, we issued 

an order provisionally permitting him to file briefs on Docson Consulting’s behalf but 

reserving decision on whether he may properly represent Docson Consulting in this 

appeal (and thus on whether he should have been permitted to do so in the District 

Court). We now conclude that he may not.

“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may 

appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s 

Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); see also Simbraw, Inc. v. United States, 367 F.2d 

373, 373-74 (3d Cir. 1966) (so holding). The same applies to LLCs, even those with only 

a single member, because even single-member LLCs have a legal identity separate from 

their members. See United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579, 581-82 (7th Cir. 2008); 

Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 2007). 

Dougherty argues that such is not the case here because he asked the Internal 

Revenue Service to disregard Docson Consulting’s separate legal identity for federal tax 

purposes. That issue is not determinative. “[T]he right to conduct business in a form that 

confers privileges, such as the limited personal liability of the owners for tort or contract 

claims against the business, carries with it obligations one of which is to hire a lawyer if 

you want to sue or defend on behalf of the entity.” Hagerman, 545 F.3d at 581-82. 
4

Dougherty, not surprisingly, has not argued that Docson Consulting’s federal tax election 

has divested him of the limited personal liability otherwise afforded by Pennsylvania law. 

See generally 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8922. Docson Consulting remains a separate legal 

entity, and thus must be represented by counsel. Dougherty’s numerous filings and many 

of his other arguments—such as his argument that Rowland is “[c]learly the worst 

decision in the modern era”—serve only to demonstrate the wisdom of that requirement.

For these reasons, we will dismiss the appeal of Docson Consulting and will 

otherwise affirm the judgment of the District Court. Dougherty has filed a number of 

motions directed at our order of December 2 summarily affirming in part. To the extent 

that those motions seek reconsideration of the order, they are denied. To the extent that 

they seek rehearing of the order, they are premature and no action will be taken on them. 

If Dougherty wishes, he may seek rehearing of our final judgment in accordance with the 

applicable rules. Dougherty’s other requests, including his unwarranted requests for 

sanctions and a default judgment, are denied as well.