IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
April 10, 2006
PENNAR SOFTWARE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF
FORTUNE 500 SYSTEMS, LTD., DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
And now, this 10th day of April, 2006, upon consideration of the order of court dated February 23, 2006 (Doc. 257), directing plaintiff to file with the court an entry of appearance of counsel on or before April 10, 2006, and of plaintiff's "notice" (Doc. 263), filed on this date, in which plaintiff avers that it has not yet located counsel to represent its interests, and requests that the above-captioned action proceed to trial without the entry of appearance of counsel for plaintiff, and it appearing that a corporate party may not appear before the court without counsel, see Rowland v. Ca. Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) ("It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel."); see also MacRae v. Smith, 159 F. App'x 336, 337 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2005) (same), and that defendant has pending before the court a motion (Doc. 229) to dismiss and for sanctions, and the court finding that granting an enlargement of time for plaintiff to retain counsel and to respond to the pending motion to dismiss and for sanctions would be in the interests of justice, cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (governing enlargements of time), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. On or before May 12, 2006, plaintiff shall retain counsel, at least one of whom shall be generally admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and said counsel shall file an entry of appearance with the court.
2. On or before May 12, 2006, newly retained counsel for plaintiff shall file a brief in opposition to the pending motion (Doc. 229) to dismiss and for sanctions.
3. Defendant shall be permitted to file a brief in reply on or before May 26, 2006.
4. Failure to comply with this order may result in the granting of the pending motion (Doc. 229) and the dismissal of this case. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41; L.R. 7.6.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.