In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 19-284T

(E-Filed: October 8, 2020)

SHIRLEY BREWER

d/b/a EMERALD 

GROUP/INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES 

LLC,

 

 Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Pro Se Complaint; Motion to Dismiss; 

RCFC 41(b); RCFC 83.1;

Unrepresented Entity; Limited 

Liability Company.

Shirley Brewer, Osterville, MA, pro se.

Margaret E. Sheer, Trial Attorney, with whom were Richard E. Zuckerman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, David I. Pincus, Chief, G. Robson Stewart, Assistant 

Chief, Tax Division, Court of Federal Claims Section, Department of Justice,

Washington, DC, for defendant.

OPINION

CAMPBELL-SMITH, J.

Before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint 

for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rules 41(b) and 83.1(a)(3) of the Rules of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), and alternatively, for lack of jurisdiction

pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), or for failure to state a claim pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6), 

filed on October 25, 2019. See ECF No. 14. Plaintiff filed her response on March 9, 

2020, ECF No. 19, and defendant filed its reply on March 23, 2020, ECF No. 21. 

Plaintiff requested additional briefing and filed a sur-reply on May 15, 2020, ECF No. 23, 

and and defendant filed a sur-response on May 21, 2020, ECF No. 24. The motion is 

now fully briefed and ripe for decision. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion 

to dismiss is GRANTED.
2

I. Background

Plaintiff first filed a complaint on February 13, 2019. See ECF No. 1. 

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on April 15, 2019, arguing that plaintiff was 

described as “Industrial Supplies, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company” and the 

complaint was signed by “Shirley Brewer, pro se,” making the plaintiff an unrepresented 

entity. See ECF No. 6 at 1. Plaintiff did not file a response, but moved to amend the 

complaint on May 20, 2019. See ECF No. 7. The court issued a show cause order on 

May 23, 2019, noting that before the case could proceed further, plaintiff “must first 

identify the party before the court and the question of attorney representation in this 

matter.” See ECF No. 8 at 1 (order). The court noted that plaintiff had inconsistently 

identified the plaintiff in this matter on her various filings and brought to plaintiff’s 

attention RCFC 83.1, which prevents pro se plaintiffs from representing business entities. 

Id. at 1-2. The court ordered plaintiff to respond and “indicate which business entity, . . .

is the proper plaintiff in this case” and to show cause why, “[i]f no attorney is to be 

sought for the alleged business entity,” an action brought under plaintiff’s name was 

appropriate. Id. at 2. Plaintiff responded on June 24, 2019, and asserted that the 

plaintiff should be “Shirley Brewer, DBA Emerald Group.” ECF No. 10 at 1. 

The court, taking into account plaintiff’s response, granted plaintiff’s motion to 

amend her complaint on July 19, 2019, noting that “the business entities identified in this 

suit by plaintiff have been variously and inconsistently described,” and directing that, 

“once Ms. Brewer’s amended complaint is filed, it will supersede all of plaintiff’s 

representations as to her business entities and her claims.” See ECF No. 11 at 1-2 

(order). Plaintiff filed the amended complaint on August 26, 2019, and quoted the 

court’s language from the July 19, 2019 order as a footnote to plaintiff’s name in the case 

caption. See ECF No. 12 at 1 n.1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint describes plaintiff as 

“Shirley Brewer d/b/a Emerald Group/INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES, LLC, a live Delaware 

Corporation” and is signed by “Shirley Brewer, pro se, Shirley Brewer d/b/a Emerald 

Group/INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES.” ECF No. 12 at 7, 34. 

In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that the government improperly failed 

to award the company a grant under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act, Pub. L. No. 111-5, div. B., 123 Stat. 115, 364 (Section 1603). See 

generally ECF No. 12. The amended complaint further alleges that plaintiff “was the 

seller/vendor/supplier to [Kansas Green Energy, LLC (KGE)] in the (Organic) Waste to 

Energy Project,” and that KGE, “a qualified applicant,” submitted “timely fully correct” 

applications for Section 1603 grants.1 Id. at 14, 16-17.

1 Plaintiff previously filed a similar case in this court, Indus. Supplies, LLC v. United 

States, Case No. 19-625C, alleging the same claims but a different applicant. That case was 
3

More specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant breached a contract and the 

Section 1603 program rules when it failed to keep the reviewers of KGE’s application 

anonymous, asked unauthorized questions of KGE and made other unauthorized 

communications, and “breached the secrecy of the KGE applicant information.” Id. at 

20-23, 27-28. Ultimately, plaintiff alleges, defendant “falsely and fraudulently” rejected 

KGE’s grant application, “resulting in the entire KGE Project being cancelled and 

returned to Shirley Brewer d/b/a Emerald Group/INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES, LLC.” Id.

at 24. Plaintiff therefore requests that this court award plaintiff $71,396,615—the cost 

of the project plus financing interest costs. See id. at 34.

II. Legal Standards

A. Pro Se Plaintiffs

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is therefore entitled to a liberal construction of 

her pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (requiring that 

allegations contained in a pro se complaint be held to “less stringent standards than 

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”) (citations omitted). Pro se plaintiffs are “not 

expected to frame issues with the precision of a common law pleading.” Roche v. U.S. 

Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 

B. RCFC 41(b), Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution

The court may, pursuant to RCFC 41(b), dismiss a complaint “[i]f the plaintiff 

fails to prosecute or to comply” with the applicable court rules. RCFC 41(b). “Unless 

the dismissal order states otherwise,” dismissal pursuant to RCFC 41(b) for failure to 

prosecute “operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Id.

Rule 83.1(a)(3) provides that “[a]n individual who is not an attorney . . . may not 

represent a corporation, entity, or any other person in proceedings before this court.” 

Violation of this rule is grounds for dismissal of a complaint for lack of prosecution 

pursuant to RCFC 41(b). See, e.g., Balbach v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 681, 683 

(2015) (citing Talasila, Inc. v. United States, 240 F.3d 1064, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

III. Analysis

Defendant argues that plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for one of three

reasons. See ECF No. 14 at 2. First, as to the named plaintiff, Shirley Brewer d/b/a

Industrial Supplies, LLC/Emerald Group, defendant argues that the complaint should be 

dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to RCFC 41(b) because that plaintiff is an 

dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to RCFC 41(b) on August 28, 2019. See Industrial 

Supplies, LLC v. United States, 144 Fed. Cl. 290 (2019).
4

unrepresented entity in violation of RCFC 83.1. See id. at 4-5. In addition, to the 

extent the claims are brought by Ms. Shirley Brewer individually, defendant argues that 

the complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim 

because plaintiff lacks standing to a bring a claim related to the Section 1603 grant 

program—as she was not the grant applicant, she was merely a subcontractor. See id. at 

5-7; ECF No. 21 at 3; ECF No. 24 at 4.

Plaintiff responds that she as an individual is the appropriate plaintiff and that she 

indeed has standing to bring the claims because the grant program treated her as a prime 

contractor by requesting information from her during the grant application review process 

that only a prime contractor was required to provide. See ECF No. 19 at 5, 11-13; ECF 

No. 23 at 14. 

If a plaintiff fails to comply with the court’s rules, the court may dismiss the 

plaintiff’s complaint for lack of prosecution. See RCFC 41(b). In this case, plaintiff 

has failed to comply with RCFC 83.1, which provides that “[a]n individual who is not an 

attorney . . . may not represent a corporation, entity, or any other person in proceedings 

before this court.” RCFC 83.1(a)(3). Plaintiff states in the amended complaint that 

plaintiff in this case is “Shirley Brewer d/b/a Emerald Group/INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES, 

LLC, a live Delaware Corporation.” ECF No. 12 at 7. Plaintiff also attached as exhibit 

A to the complaint a Delaware document certifying that Industrial Supplies, LLC is a 

corporation in good standing in Delaware. See ECF No. 12-1 at 2. 

The court previously gave plaintiff a chance to clarify the legal nature of the 

named plaintiff in the original complaint, but she failed to do so. See ECF No. 8 (order); 

ECF No. 11 (order). Plaintiff continued to variously and inconsistently describe the 

entities involved in this suit throughout the briefing on defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

See, e.g., ECF No. 12 at 1 (naming plaintiff as “Shirley Brewer d/b/a Emerald 

Group/INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES, LLC”); ECF No. 19 at 1, 5 (naming plaintiff in the 

caption as “Shirley Brewer d/b/a INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES, LLC” but noting that 

“[a]lthough she submitted her Complaint naming her d/b/a LLC as the entity filing the 

Complaint,” she “suffered substantial personal monetary losses”); ECF No. 23 (naming 

plaintiff in the caption as “Shirley Brewer”). As the court previously noted in its order, 

ECF No. 11, the representations in the amended complaint supersede all other 

representations of Ms. Brewer’s business entities and claims. Thus, plaintiff in this case 

is as named and described in the amended complaint.

The amended complaint describes plaintiff as a “live Delaware corporation,” and 

that entity may not be represented by Ms. Brewer, who is not an attorney. See RCFC 

83.1(a)(3); see also Indus. Supplies, LLC v. United States, 144 Fed. Cl. 290, 293 (2019) 

(concluding under similar facts that Industrial Supplies, LLC had violated RCFC 83.1 

because it was represented by Ms. Brewer and not an attorney). Therefore, as an 
5

unrepresented entity, plaintiff is in violation of RCFC 83.1(a)(3). Plaintiff’s claims must 

be dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to RCFC 41(b).

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, 

(1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED;

(2) Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, ECF No. 26, is DENIED

as moot; and

(3) The clerk’s office is directed to ENTER final judgment DISMISSING

plaintiff’s amended complaint for lack of prosecution pursuant to RCFC 

41(b) with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Patricia E. Campbell-Smith

PATRICIA E. CAMPBELL-SMITH

Judge