Case Name: Carl LAWRENCE and Warwick Capital Management, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-19
Citations: 384 F. App'x 44
Docket Number: No. 09-4921-cv
Parties: Carl LAWRENCE and Warwick Capital Management, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, B.D. PARKER, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 44–45

Head Matter:
Carl LAWRENCE and Warwick Capital Management, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-4921-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
July 19, 2010.
Carl Lawrence, pro se, Bronxville, New York.
Christopher M. Bruckman, Senior Counsel (Richard M. Humes, Associate General Counsel, Melinda Hardy, Assistant General Counsel, on the brief), United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, B.D. PARKER, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
This is an appeal from the district court's order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint of plaintiffs-appellants Carl Lawrence, pro se, and Warwick Capital Management ("Warwick"), an unrepresented corporation, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), and from the district court's order denying the Appellants' motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history.
As an initial matter, Lawrence named Warwick as a plaintiff below and as a party joined in the instant appeal. See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 256 (2d Cir.1995) (This Court will "construe notices of appeal liberally, taking the parties' intentions into account."). We dismiss Warwick's appeal because a corporation may not appear pro se or be represented by a non-lawyer. See Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1308-10 (2d Cir.1991) (holding that a "layman" may not represent a separate legal entity).
We construe the notice of appeal as challenging both the district court's order denying the motion for reconsideration and the order dismissing the complaint. See Shrader, 70 F.3d at 256. On appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court reviews the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. See Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000). Although Lawrence did not raise any new arguments in the motion for reconsideration, we liberally construe his brief as challenging the denial of the motion for reconsideration as well as the dismissal of the complaint. We review for abuse of discretion a district court order denying a motion for relief from a final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). See Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir.1998).
Having reviewed the record according to these principles, we affirm the district court's order and judgment for substantially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his report and recommendation. We have considered all of the Appellants' arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal of Warwick Capital Management is hereby DISMISSED and the district court's judgment and its order denying the motion for reconsideration are hereby AFFIRMED.