Page 1 of 11 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL BISCHOFF 

and PASSPORT PIZZA 

 

 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:09-cv-10549 

-v- Judge John Feikens 

Magistrate Judge Steven D. Pepe 

PIZZA PALAZZO, 

CHRISTOPHER SWANSON, 

KEN WALDORF, TRACEY (DOE) 

WALSON, INC., 

10 JOHN JANE DOES, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________________________________________ 

Michael Bischoff 

In Propria Persona and Attorney for Passport Pizza 

13737 19 Mile Rd. 

Sterling Hts., MI 48113 

586.596.1830 

David M. Belanger (P39266) Richard J. Carolan (P39980) 

THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID M. BELANGER, P.C. CAROLAN & CAROLAN, P.C. 

Attorney for Defendants Co-counsel for Defendants 

200 Maple Park Blvd., Suite 205 200 Maple Park Blvd., Suite 205 

St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48081 St. Clair Shores, MI 48081-2 

586.445.9100 586.498.7531 

david@belangerlegal.com richard.carolan@gmail.com 

____________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 

TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AS TO “PASSPORT PIZZA”

AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST MICHAEL BISCHOFF 

 Defendant, by and through counsel, moves this Court for summary judgment 

pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(c) and 56, an order to strike the complaint as to “Passport Pizza” 

and stating: 

1. Plaintiff, Michael Bischoff, has no standing to bring the instant action, as he 

Case 2:09-cv-10549-JF-VMM ECF No. 11 filed 03/10/09 PageID.61 Page 1 of 11
Page 2 of 11 

2

was not a party to any claimed franchise agreement with Defendants and possesses no 

copyright, trademark, patent or trade secrets claimed in the instant action. 

2. “Passport Pizza” is a corporate assumed name for Passport Group LTD or 

Passport Enterprises Inc., lacking any capacity to bring a civil action. 

3. Neither “Passport Pizza” nor Passport Group LTD nor Passport Enterprises, 

Inc. has standing to bring the instant action because neither “Passport Pizza” nor Passport 

Group LTD nor Passport Enterprises Inc. was a party to any claimed franchise agreement 

with Defendants. 

4. Defendants considered a proposed franchise arrangement with Passport 

USA, Inc., an entity that did not exist until it was incorporated on March 17, 2008 and 

which would therefore have no standing to bring the instant action based on an agreement 

alleged to have been reached in July of 2007 and effective on August 1, 2007 (Plaintiffs’ 

complaint, paragraph 3 of section entitled “FACTS”, page 2). 

5. If this Court were to consider the naming of “Passport Pizza” as merely a 

misnomer of Passport USA, Inc., Passport Group LTD or Passport Enterprises, Inc., then 

Defendants request that the complaint be dismissed, as no licensed attorney filed the 

complaint on behalf of these corporations, rendering the summons and complaint a nullity. 

6. Michael Bischoff presumably is not a licensed attorney, as he did not identify 

himself as an attorney, is not listed in the State Bar of Michigan Directory as an attorney 

and has not supplied a State Bar number on the pleadings, and the filing of a complaint by 

him on behalf of “Passport Pizza” (or any corporation owning the assumed name) 

constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that this honorable Court: 

Case 2:09-cv-10549-JF-VMM ECF No. 11 filed 03/10/09 PageID.62 Page 2 of 11
Page 3 of 11 

3

1. Grant them summary judgment as to all claims asserted by Plaintiff, Michael 

Bischoff and “Passport Pizza”. 

2. Dismiss the complaint filed by Michael Bischoff on behalf of “Passport Pizza” 

or any corporate entities the Court deems to have been mis-named. 

3. Refer the matter of Michael Bischoff’s unauthorized practice law to the 

Wayne County Prosecutor, the Michigan Supreme Court or the Circuit Court for Wayne 

County for prosecution of the offense or a hearing to show cause why he should not be 

held in contempt of court. 

4. Award Defendants their costs and attorney fees for having to defend this 

frivolous and illegally filed action. 

Respectfully submitted, 

THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID M. BELANGER, P.C. 

 By: _/s/ David M. Belanger__________ 

 DAVID M. BELANGER (P39266) 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 200 Maple Park Boulevard, Suite 205 

 St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48081 

 (586) 445-9100 

CAROLAN & CAROLAN, P.C. 

 By:_/s/ Richard J. Carolan___________ 

 RICHARD J. CAROLAN (P39980) 

 Attorney for Defendants 

200 Maple Park Boulevard, Suite 205 

St. Clair Shores, MI 48081-2211 

(586) 498-7531 

March 10, 2009 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 Richard J. Carolan states that, on March 10, 2009, he served copies of 

Case 2:09-cv-10549-JF-VMM ECF No. 11 filed 03/10/09 PageID.63 Page 3 of 11
Page 4 of 11 

4

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, to dismiss and sanctions against Michael 

Bischoff and this Proof of Service upon Plaintiffs by this Court’s ECF system to their 

respective email addresses and by U.S. Mail. 

 I declare that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge, 

information and belief. 

 _/s/ Richard J. Carolan______ 

 RICHARD J. CAROLAN 

Case 2:09-cv-10549-JF-VMM ECF No. 11 filed 03/10/09 PageID.64 Page 4 of 11
Page 5 of 11 

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL BISCHOFF 

and PASSPORT PIZZA 

 

 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:09-cv-10549 

-v- Judge John Feikens 

Magistrate Judge Steven D. Pepe 

PIZZA PALAZZO, 

CHRISTOHPER SWANSON, 

KEN WALDORF, TRACEY (DOE) 

WALSON, INC., 

10 JOHN JANE DOES, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________________________________________ 

Michael Bischoff 

In Propria Persona and Attorney for Passport Pizza 

13737 19 Mile Rd. 

Sterling Hts., MI 48113 

586.596.1830 

David M. Belanger (P39266) Richard J. Carolan (P39980) 

THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID M. BELANGER, P.C. CAROLAN & CAROLAN, P.C. 

Attorney for Defendants Co-counsel for Defendants 

200 Maple Park Blvd., Suite 205 200 Maple Park Blvd., Suite 205 

St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48081 St. Clair Shores, MI 48081-2 

586.445.9100 586.498.7531 

____________________________________________________________________ 

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 

TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AS TO “PASSPORT PIZZA”

AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST MICHAEL BISCHOFF 

Introduction

 In this action, Plaintiffs claim pizza, ribs and sandwiches as a trade secret or 

otherwise their intellectual property. They also seek to enforce rights which are not theirs. 

No plaintiff has any standing to sue in this case. One plaintiff is not even a legal entity. 

Case 2:09-cv-10549-JF-VMM ECF No. 11 filed 03/10/09 PageID.65 Page 5 of 11
Page 6 of 11 

6

Conversely, if it is a legal entity, then the other plaintiff is illegally practicing law in 

representing it. 

Statement of facts

Plaintiff, Michael Bischoff, alleges that he reached a franchise agreement with 

Defendants in July of 2007, effective on August 1, 2007 (complaint, paragraph 3 of section 

entitled “FACTS”, page 2). However, Passport USA, Inc. is the only entity mentioned in 

the attached franchise disclosure document given to Defendants. Exhibit A. Furthermore, 

Passport USA, Inc. not exist until it was incorporated on March 17, 2008. Exhibit B. Its 

incorporator was Suzanne M. LaTour, and the articles of incorporation do not mention 

Michael Bischoff. Ibid. 

“Passport Pizza” is nothing more than an assumed name. A company known as 

Passport Enterprises, Inc. obtained a certificate of this assumed name on December 10, 

2003. Exhibit C. The certificate of assumed name expired on December 31, 2008. Ibid. 

“Passport Pizza” is also an assumed name for another company, Passport Group LTD. 

Passport Group LTD obtained a certificate of assumed name for “Passport Pizza” on 

March 13, 2007. Exhibit D. The certificate will expire on December 31, 2012. Whatever 

corporation holds the assumed name, the name itself is no legal entity capable of 

maintaining a cause of action. Furthermore, neither corporation is a plaintiff in the instant 

action. Neither corporation could be a plaintiff, as Defendants never entertained any 

franchise agreement with either corporation. Exhibit A. 

Argument

 Defendants seek summary judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(c) and 56. Summary 

judgment will be granted if the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and 

Case 2:09-cv-10549-JF-VMM ECF No. 11 filed 03/10/09 PageID.66 Page 6 of 11
Page 7 of 11 

7

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine 

issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine issue for trial exists only if "the evidence 

is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict" for the party opposing summary 

judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) In other words, 

issues of fact are not material and do not preclude summary judgment unless they 

"might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id. There is no genuine 

issue for trial if the evidence favoring the non-movant is "merely colorable" or "not 

significantly probative." Id. at 249. If the party seeking summary judgment demonstrates 

the absence of a genuine material fact, the party opposing summary judgment "may not 

rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but . . . must set forth specific 

facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial" or judgment may be granted as a 

matter of law. Id. at 248. The party opposing summary judgment must present evidence 

sufficient to establish the existence of any challenged element that is essential to that 

party's case and for which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. 

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). 

Neither “Passport Pizza” nor Michael Bischoff has standing to bring the instant 

action, as neither of them was a party to any claimed franchise agreement with 

Defendants. “Passport Pizza” is merely an assumed name for Passport Group LTD or 

Passport Enterprises, Inc. As such, it lacks any capacity to sue. The only franchise 

disclosure document considered by Defendants refers only to Passport USA, Inc. Exhibit 

A. Therefore, Michael Bischoff, Passport Group, LTD and Passport Enterprises, Inc.

fail to qualify as parties in interest. 

Case 2:09-cv-10549-JF-VMM ECF No. 11 filed 03/10/09 PageID.67 Page 7 of 11
Page 8 of 11 

8

 Furthermore, if this Court were to consider the naming of “Passport Pizza” as 

merely a misnomer of Passport Group LTD or Passport Enterprises, Inc., then Defendants 

request that the complaint be dismissed. No licensed attorney filed the complaint on behalf 

of these corporations. Michael Bischoff presumably is not a licensed attorney, as he did 

not identify himself as an attorney, is not listed in the State Bar of Michigan Directory as an 

attorney and has not supplied a State Bar number on the pleadings. Not having been filed 

in a legally cognizable fashion, the summons and complaint are a nullity. 

MCL 600.916 provides: 

It is unlawful for any person to practice law, or engage in 

the law business, or in any manner whatsoever to lead 

others to believe that he is authorized to practice law or to 

engage in the law business, or in any manner whatsoever 

to represent or designate himself as an attorney and 

counsellor, attorney at law, or lawyer, unless the person 

doing so is regularly licensed and authorized to practice 

law in this state. Any person who violates the provisions 

of this section is guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court 

and of the circuit court of the county in which the

violation occurred, and upon conviction is punishable by 

law. 

Furthermore, MCL 600.1701 provides: 

The Supreme Court, circuit courts, and all other courts of 

record, have the power to punish by fine or imprisonment, 

or both, persons guilty of any neglect or violation of duty 

or misconduct in all of the following cases: 

(h) All persons assuming to be and acting as 

officers, attorneys, or counselors of any 

court without authority; ...

It is beyond dispute that Plaintiff, Michael Bischoff, has violated these statutes. 

 In a case originating in Michigan, Ginger v. Cohn, 426 F.2d 1385 (6th Cir. 1970) 

held that an officer of a corporation who is not a licensed attorney is not authorized to 

Case 2:09-cv-10549-JF-VMM ECF No. 11 filed 03/10/09 PageID.68 Page 8 of 11
Page 9 of 11 

9

make an appearance in court on behalf of the corporation. Similarly, in Algonac v. US, 458 

F.2d 1373 (1972), the court held that an individual who was not a lawyer could not appear 

on behalf of his corporation, even though he was the sole shareholder and president of 

that corporation. 458 F.2d, at 1375. 

 In an unpublished opinion, Burgess v. Bernhardt, docket number 268569 (Exhibit 

E), the Court of Appeals stated: 

Non lawyers have a constitutional right to protect their 

own suits in their own proper persons. Const 1962, Art. 1, 

§ 13. However, plaintiff brought and attempted to 

prosecute this action on behalf of his mother, who was 

purportedly the real party in interest. ‘Appellant is not, in 

other words, representing himself in litigation. Instead, 

he is representing a client, [his mother]. Thus, he is 

engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Shenkman v. 

Bragman, 261 Mich App 412, 416 (2004). See also, Chisholm 

v. Rueckhaus, 124 NM 255, 257; 948 P. 2d 707 (1997) (“The 

authority to represent another party as a party does not 

equal the authority to practice law on their behalf”). 

Indeed, plaintiff admitted to the trial court that he was 

engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 

Accordingly, the trial court’s decision to sanction to 

plaintiff for filing a frivolous lawsuit was not clear error, as 

plaintiff’s ‘legal position was devoid of arguable legal 

merit.’” MCL 600.2591 (3)(iii). 

In this case, Michael Bischoff has filed a complaint on behalf of a corporation. 

 The practice of law is not confined to appearances in the courts of this state, but 

includes the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to any action in any court 

or judicial body. Grand Rapids Bar Ass’n v. Denkema, 290 Mich. 56 (1939). In Bolt v. 

Lansing, 221 Mich. App. 79 (1997), the court in note three observed: 

The amicus brief filed by Citizens to Abolish the Rain Tax 

Ordinance is not in the form prescribed by MCR 7.212 (C) 

and is signed by a person who does not identify himself 

as an attorney, who is not listed in the State Bar of 

Michigan directory as a licensed attorney, and who has 

supplied no State Bar number. Because this brief is filed 

Case 2:09-cv-10549-JF-VMM ECF No. 11 filed 03/10/09 PageID.69 Page 9 of 11
Page 10 of 11 

10

on behalf of an organization and not on behalf of the 

individual signing the brief, preparation of the brief by one 

who is not a licensed attorney constitutes the 

unauthorized practice of law and is in contempt of this 

court. MCL 600.916; Bay County Bar Ass’n v. Finance 

Systems, Inc., 354 Mich. 434 (1956). In lieu of issuing an 

order to this individual to show cause why he should not 

be held in contempt of this court, this court instead has 

decided to order that the brief be stricken.” 

Clearly, the preparation and filing of a complaint in this case constitutes the 

preparation of a pleading incident to an action and the unauthorized practice of law by Mr. 

Bischoff. Mr. Bischoff’s conduct demands sanction. It appears he is attempting to extort a 

quick settlement from Defendants, hoping they will be unwilling or unable to afford attorney 

fees. A telephone call received by Defendant, Ken Waldorf, on Friday, March 6, indicates 

as much. The caller, identifying himself as Mr. Bischoff’s attorney, suggested to Mr. 

Waldorf that he consider payment of an early settlement, in an effort to avoid attorney 

fees. When Mr. Waldorf asked for his contact information so that his counsel could contact 

the attorney, the conversation abruptly ended. It is believed the caller was not at attorney, 

but, in fact, Mr. Bischoff. Defendant will supplement its motion with an affidavit in support 

of these allegations. Accordingly, he should be held in contempt of the Supreme Court of 

the State of Michigan or the circuit court of Wayne County or prosecuted for the 

unauthorized practice of law, and, as was done in Bolt, supra, the complaint should be 

stricken. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that this honorable Court: 

1. Grant them summary judgment as to all claims asserted by Plaintiff, Michael 

Bischoff and “Passport Pizza”. 

2. Dismiss the complaint filed by Michael Bischoff on behalf of “Passport Pizza” 

Case 2:09-cv-10549-JF-VMM ECF No. 11 filed 03/10/09 PageID.70 Page 10 of 11
Page 11 of 11 

11

or any corporate entities the Court deems to have been mis-named. 

3. Refer the matter of Michael Bischoff’s unauthorized practice law to the 

Wayne County Prosecutor, the Michigan Supreme Court or the Circuit Court for Wayne 

County for prosecution of the offense or a hearing to show cause why he should not be 

held in contempt. 

4. Award Defendants their costs and attorney fees for having to defend this 

frivolous and illegally filed action. 

Respectfully submitted, 

THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID M. BELANGER, 

 P.C. 

 By: _/s/ David M. Belanger__________ 

 DAVID M. BELANGER (P39266) 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 200 Maple Park Boulevard, Suite 205 

 St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48081 

 (586) 445-9100 

CAROLAN & CAROLAN, P.C. 

 By:_/s/ Richard J. Carolan___________ 

 RICHARD J. CAROLAN (P39980) 

 Attorney for Defendants 

200 Maple Park Boulevard, Suite 205 

St. Clair Shores, MI 48081-2211 

(586) 498-7531 

March 10, 2009 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that, on March 10, 2009, a copy of Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment, to dismiss and sanctions against Michael Bischoff was served 

upon all plaintiffs via this Court’s ECF system to their respective email addresses and 

U.S. Mail. 

 _/s/ Richard J. Carolan______ 

 RICHARD J. CAROLAN 

Case 2:09-cv-10549-JF-VMM ECF No. 11 filed 03/10/09 PageID.71 Page 11 of 11