IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FIDELITY BANK, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 15-0031-WS-M

 )

KEY HOTELS OF BREWTON, LLC, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Motion of Silver, Voit & Thompson, Attorneys at 

Law, P.C. to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendants Key Hotels of Brewton, LLC and Anand Patel 

(doc. 46).

The deteriorating relationship between defendants, Key Hotels of Brewton, LLC, and 

Anand Patel, and their counsel has been readily apparent for some time. Back on July 28, 2015, 

defendants’ counsel filed their first Motion to Withdraw, asserting as grounds “that Defendants 

have failed to cooperate with counsel thereby making it impossible for counsel to represent the 

said Defendants and comply with the orders of the Court.” (Doc. 33, at 1.) The very next day,

defendants’ counsel withdrew their original Motion to Withdraw for the stated reason that they 

had met with and reached an understanding with defendant Patel “that the problems of client 

cooperation ... have been resolved and will not reoccur.” (Doc. 36, at 1.)

Unfortunately, such a sentiment – like many other aspects of this case – appears to have 

been wishful thinking. On September 10, 2015, defendants’ counsel renewed their Motion to 

Withdraw, citing the same “failure to cooperate” concerns that prompted their initial request. 

(Doc. 46, at 1.) From these circumstances, it is evident that defendants and their counsel of 

record have proven unable to work together and that the attorney-client relationship is 

unsalvageable at this point. In light of this fundamental breakdown, to force the Silver, Voit & 

Thompson firm to continue their representation of defendants in these proceedings would be to 

engage in a futile, inefficient and likely counterproductive endeavor. Accordingly, the Motion to 

Case 1:15-cv-00031-WS-M Document 49 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 3
-2-

Withdraw as Counsel (doc. 46) is granted. Attorneys Lawrence B. Voit and Alexandra K. 

Garrett, and their law firm, Silver, Voit & Thompson, Attorneys at Law, P.C., are hereby deemed 

withdrawn from, and are relieved of, further representation of Key Hotels of Brewton, LLC and 

Anand Patel in these proceedings. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Attorneys Voit 

and Garrett as defendants’ counsel of record.

In light of this development, defendant Anand Patel has two options. He may retain new 

counsel to represent his interests in these proceedings, in which case he must promptly notify the 

Court in writing of substitute counsel’s identity, address and telephone number. Or, 

alternatively, Patel may elect to proceed without counsel and represent himself as a pro se

litigant in this case. While Patel certainly is entitled to proceed pro se if he so chooses, he is 

cautioned that unrepresented litigants are expected to comply fully with applicable laws, 

procedural rules and court orders, and that neither this Court nor any other District Court judicial 

officers or personnel may give him legal advice or serve as de facto counsel on his behalf.1 

Defendant is ordered to notify the Court in writing on or before October 8, 2015, whether he 

has obtained new counsel (and, if so, to provide the name and contact information for same) or 

whether he intends to represent himself henceforth.

By contrast, defendant Key Hotels of Brewton, LLC, does not have the option of 

proceeding in this litigation without counsel. A business organization such as a limited liability 

company is an artificial entity that cannot appear in court pro se through a member or officer. 

See, e.g., Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985) (“The rule is well 

established that a corporation is an artificial entity that ... cannot appear pro se, and must be 

represented by counsel.”); S.E.C. v. Merchant Capital, LLC, 2012 WL 3205543, *1 n.2 (11th Cir. 

Sept. 11, 2012) (“It is well established, however, that a business organization cannot appear pro 

se and must be represented by counsel, not merely by a stockholder or officer.”) (citation 

 1 See, e.g., Windham v. City of Fairhope, Ala., 20 F. Supp.3d 1323, 1334 n.14 (S.D. 

Ala. 2014) (recognizing that “even pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules and court 

orders” and that “this Court may not serve as de facto counsel for” pro se litigants) (citations 

omitted); Quinn v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 2014 WL 1410430, *7 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 11, 

2014) (“the inescapable fact remains that every pro se litigant is expected to comply with court 

orders and procedural rules”); General L.R. 83.5(a) (“All persons proceeding pro se shall be 

bound by, and must comply with, all Local Rules of this Court, as well as the Federal Rules of 

Civil and Criminal Procedure, unless excused by Court order.”).

Case 1:15-cv-00031-WS-M Document 49 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 3
-3-

omitted). Simply put, Key Hotels cannot represent itself, nor can its managers, members, 

officers or employees file papers in this case on behalf of that entity unless they are licensed 

attorneys acting in a representative capacity. For this reason, it is imperative that Key Hotels 

retain substitute counsel immediately if it wishes to be heard or to defend in this action. Key 

Hotels is therefore ordered, on or before October 8, 2015, to notify the Court in writing of the 

name, address and telephone number of the substitute counsel it has retained to represent its 

interests in this action.

Defendants are cautioned that failure to comply with this Order in a timely manner 

may result in entry of default or other sanctions against them upon motion by plaintiff.

Also pending at this time is the Motion of Fidelity Bank to Establish Sale Procedures 

(doc. 48) filed on September 10, 2015. This Motion will be held in abeyance until the abovedescribed representation issues are resolved, at which time a briefing schedule will be entered on 

the Motion to Establish Sale Procedures and the Court will act promptly to adjudicate same.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail copies of this Order to defendants at the following 

addresses of record: Key Hotels of Brewton, LLC, c/o Anand Patel as Managing Member, 6401 

Canebrake Road, Mobile AL 36695; and Anand Patel, 6401 Canebrake Road, Mobile AL 36695. 

Plaintiff is reminded that, until such time as new counsel may appear for defendants, it is 

responsible for serving hard copies of any new filings on defendants at their service addresses

via first class mail, inasmuch as unrepresented litigants are generally not registered as 

participants in this District Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing and notification system. See

General L.R. 5(d).

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of September, 2015.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00031-WS-M Document 49 Filed 09/17/15 Page 3 of 3