Is it possible to make a 'pro se' Motion to Amend on behalf of an LLC?

[moonj]

Jurisdiction

Virginia

(Interstate case; filed in Virginia, company in Florida)

I own a single-member LLC that may be the target of a frivolous lawsuit. The LLC is a container company for a website that makes very little money and owns nothing but a few domain names, licenses to software, and brand copyrights (not formally documented) which would total under $1000 even by generous approximation. I myself would probably constitute a pauper.

I know that the Federal Rules regarding LLCs are very strict on its requirement that an LLC may not be represented pro se by its sole proprietor, however! I do not believe that Plaintiff would have the ability to state a case against the LLC itself.

Is it possible, representing myself, that I motion the court to require the Plaintiff to amend her complaint to name me specifically as the defendant, or otherwise require her to justify the state of case addressing the LLC directly?

If not, and I do need an attorney to even do this, what is the easiest way to get a single motion attorney?

 

[zddoodah]

Is it possible, representing myself, that I motion the court to require the Plaintiff to amend her complaint to name me specifically as the defendant, or otherwise require her to justify the state of case addressing the LLC directly?

You're not apparently a party, so you can't file anything, with the possible exception of a motion to intervene.

"[T]o justify" alleging the case against the LLC is the whole point of the lawsuit. The LLC is free to answer and deny the allegations and force the plaintiff to meet its burden of proof.

what is the easiest way to get a single motion attorney?

I'm not sure what this question means. Whether you can find a lawyer willing to represent you only for the purpose of some motion is anyone's guess. Of course, you can always hire a lawyer without any limitation and then fire the lawyer after the motion is done. Of course, if the LLC remains a party to the case, then you'll have a situation in which the LLC is unrepresented, which will result in the court ordering the LLC to obtain counsel on pain of default.

 

[army judge]

If its a federal case, unless you're an attorney who has practiced in federal court, you're at a huge disadvantage procedurally. Throw in the USC and you're like a flea trying to stop a herd of rampaging, angry elephants.

In some cases, when what you're trying to defend has little value, the best thing to do is nothing.

 

[moonj]

You're not apparently a party, so you can't file anything, with the possible exception of a motion to intervene.

Which I may want to do.

In some cases, when what you're trying to defend has little value, the best thing to do is nothing.

This seems to be what is suggested to me.

I run a website. I propped up an LLC as a container company for the website. The LLC owns branding, domain names, and irrevocable license to republish posts made on the website. Plaintiff is planning on suing the website for a crime which does not exist.

She has done this twice; first it was thrown out for failure to state a claim sua sponte (she accused it of "co-conspiracy to cyberstalking" because of posts made on the website by a person she has an active injunction against). She then sued the court itself for throwing out the case and the court again threw it out sua sponte. Her husband has publicly claimed the judge was prejudiced against her wife for being married to a latino person. This claim is bogus and his evidence amounts to "the bailiff looked at me funny", so I would want to immediately motion in future lawsuits the matter was settled res judicata.

Her husband has publicly stated he intends to "make money" off suing the website while simultaneously claiming that the website is not a real problem. I have hard copies of this statement, which could indicate legally that they are (a) vexatious litigants, (b) abusing the court and subject to sanctions, although the husband is not the Plaintiff and I would need to motion the court to bring him into the suit so that I may present evidence gained from his statements against his wife's claims.

I would very much like to protect my company's good legal standing and prevent her from enforcing a default judgement that could cause me to lose rights to my branding and licenses. I am considering an Internvention, citing that I have interests alongside the entity (protecting my own posts on the website, among other things), and that it is for the expediency of the court, as I have countermotions to bring against them.

It seems the sensible thing to do is ignore this and permit the court to repeatedly spank them, but I am afraid she will continue to file motions in different courts until the right combination of claim and judge is found and it proceeds to trial. If she does gain her default judgement, I am afraid I will not be able to undo that damage.

 

[army judge]

It seems the sensible thing to do is ignore this and permit the court to repeatedly spank them, but I am afraid she will continue to file motions in different courts until the right combination of claim and judge is found and it proceeds to trial, and if she does gain her default judgement, I will not be able to undo that damage.

Now your thought process is functioning properly.

I advise clients, from time to time, NOT to insert yourself into each and every situation which you might find to be objectionable.

Unless you, your livelihood, or your assets are jeopardized, most of the time you can simply sit back and enjoy the fun for FREE.

 

[moonj]

Unless you, your livelihood, or your assets are jeopardized, most of the time you can simply sit back and enjoy the fun for FREE.

And if she does win a default judgement in her state?

 

[army judge]

And if she does win a default judgement in her state?

I can't advise you what you should do.

If I were sitting in your position, owning an asset worth under $1,000, and suffered a default judgment I'd avail myself of one or two options:

1 - I could file a BK

or

2 - Do nothing.

I'd probably choose option 1.
That would alleviate any financial liability I'd receive.

Frankly, I don't know enough to correctly say.
I'm simply speculating which is practically useless.

I might also file the BK proactively to thwart any judgment I feared to be forthcoming.

You can seek three consultations with attorneys in your area for FREE.

Once you've done that, you can make a more informed decision and choose an action better suited to serve your predicament.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

What is an "interstate case" exactly - are we in federal court or a state court? The difference is important. I'm confused since we don't even know the underlying claims.

1) What court are we in, as in the name - federal or state?

2) You can't sue someone based upon criminal law. That's a prosecutor's job to do in criminal court. So, what are the causes of action in the complaint - and are they based on federal or state law?

3) In the complaint, how does the plaintiff allege that the defendant is under the jurisdiction of the court? Where are you physically located? I assume the company is incorporated in Florida. Why is a Virginia Court supposed to have jurisdiction?

As @army judge mentions, there are different strategies to take. Simply because someone files a complaint doesn't mean they win on default if you don't show. They must still make a primae facie case exists (a bona fide dispute) and that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant. And what you do also depends upon whether this is a state or federal action. But let's move on from this.

What I'd want to know is where all this money is coming from to fund all of these lawsuits and what is the motivation to do so. People don't usually just file lawsuits on whim and, unless you've got plenty of disposable cash, they don't just happen. I'm wondering what the company does, irrespective of its assets, to attract this type of attention. I'm also wondering how the plaintiff plans to make money if you tell me the company's assets aren't worth more than $1,000.

You may want to contact the Florida Bar Association. But there is more here than I think we know in order to provide meaningful feedback.

 

[moonj]

What is an "interstate case" exactly

Virginia plaintiff, Florida company, and I'm currently in neither state.

1) What court are we in, as in the name - federal or state?

She has tried both state court and federal court. I do not know where upcoming litigation would be.

2) You can't sue someone based upon criminal law. That's a prosecutor's job to do in criminal court. So, what are the causes of action in the complaint - and are they based on federal or state law?

In her state litigation it was a civil suit for a criminal complaint based on a crime that did not exist, which was thrown out. I do not have these documents because they were serviced improperly and are unavailable on PACER.

In her federal litigation, she attempted to sue the court for negligence and in her prayer for relief asked for the district attorney to press criminal charges against me. These documents, which I do have, were dismissed in the same day the clerk filed. The federal judge who responded said that there was failure to state a claim and that the court lacked the jurisdiction to compel the local prosecuting attorney to do anything.

3) In the complaint, how does the plaintiff allege that the defendant is under the jurisdiction of the court? Where are you physically located? I assume the company is incorporated in Florida. Why is a Virginia Court supposed to have jurisdiction?

I cannot answer this. She does not have any actual means to support her claims.

What I'd want to know is where all this money is coming from to fund all of these lawsuits

She files them as a pauper.

what is the motivation to do so.

A platform I run has a person on it she has legitimate injunctions/TROs against. I've instructed her to use this knowledge to get further punitive action against this person, but she is attempting to steal from me using this as means. In a video her husband published to YouTube, which I have a permanent copy of, he claims it doesn't bother him but "that's not going to stop me from trying to make some money".

I'm also wondering how the plaintiff plans to make money if you tell me the company's assets aren't worth more than $1,000.

Me too.

You may want to contact the Florida Bar Association.

I've tried contacting both Virginia and Florida corporate and civil attorneys but I'm not even being contacted regarding free consultation. It doesn't seem like anyone even wants to touch this which is why I've been reading the Federal Rulebooks and considering a way to inject myself personally into any future lawsuits between the company and the plaintiff.

I don't know how viable this is but if she does continue trying this I'm tempted to do the intervention as I described and then try for a Rule 68 ultimatum which is essentially "drop this with prejduice or I am going to go after you in criminal court for litigation abuse". If she turns down that Rule 68, I will have more leverage when seeking counsel, as they will know any victory against the plaintiff means they are due fees by the plaintiff.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

Virginia plaintiff, Florida company, and I'm currently in neither state.

That's not an interstate case since there is no such thing! It just means that the parties to a lawsuit are from different states. That's fine and doesn't matter at all so long as the court has jurisdiction over the defendant and over the subject matter. So the important issue is what court - state or federal - has this case been brought. It may also be important if it is a county or small claims court too.

A plaintiff can willingly submit to the jurisdiction of a court (and will since they choose the forum.) The defendant is a whole other matter. And second, the subject matter is also important and the court has to either have jurisdiction directly over the subject matter (such as a federal court concerning a federal trademark) or "diversity jurisdiction" where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

She has tried both state court and federal court. I do not know where upcoming litigation would be.

So this is a hypothetical. That being the case, my thoughts are (and not legal advice) is to let them bark as loud as they want and respond if and when they actually do something.

In her state litigation it was a civil suit for a criminal complaint based on a crime that did not exist, which was thrown out. I do not have these documents because they were serviced improperly and are unavailable on PACER.

Then they are incompetent and you too aren't completely familiar with how things work in the legal system or just haven't mastered all the terminology - and that's fine. Clearly you have some experience. As i mentioned you cannot sue in civil court for a cause of action that is based upon a criminal statute. We're missing something here and the bottom line is that there wasn't even a case because they couldn't even get to home plate by serving the defendants properly. The case never happened and probably wouldn't have happened even if you were served properly because of the above - can't sue in civil court using a criminal statute.

In her federal litigation, she attempted to sue the court for negligence and in her prayer for relief asked for the district attorney to press criminal charges against me. These documents, which I do have, were dismissed in the same day the clerk filed. The federal judge who responded said that there was failure to state a claim and that the court lacked the jurisdiction to compel the local prosecuting attorney to do anything.

So these were pro se civil actions? What a waste of money. You're saying she filed a case or attempted to file a case. But what makes no sense at all is that a judge heard the claim on the same day of the filing. Perhaps the clerk may have rejected the papers? Don't know. Either way, somehow you know about the history of this case and it's strike 2.

I cannot answer this. She does not have any actual means to support her claims. She files them as a pauper.

So she is filing everything pro se and going nowhere. I'm seeing a trend. I don't think you have anything to worry about since she's only able to get into the batter's box but never even get to home plate to bat. Chances are she'll strike out again from what I'm hearing and you can cross a bridge if and when she actually gets a third chance.

A platform I run has people on it she has legitimate injunctions and/or TROs against. I've instructed her to use this knowledge to get further punitive action against this person, but she is attempting to steal from me using this as means. In a video her husband published to YouTube, which I have a permanent copy of, he claims it doesn't bother him but "that's not going to stop me from trying to make some money".

I have absolutely no idea what this means and don't know whether the injunctions and TROs have anything to do with you. If they do then you should be taking it seriously. It sounds more like you're a middleman for something and you're telling her she needs to take extra steps against these people (to whom she has the restraining orders.) What her husband says sounds like general barking from people who may not know what they are talking about.

I've tried contacting both Virginia and Florida corporate and civil attorneys but I'm not even being contacted regarding free consultation. It doesn't seem like anyone even wants to touch this which is why I've been reading the Federal Rulebooks and considering a way to inject myself personally into any future lawsuits between the company and the plaintiff

Not surprised. We still don't know what this mysterious platform is that you're providing! My guess is that this is not a not-for-profit venture and which would fall under the purview of the types of people and cases that the bar association or other attorneys may provide assistance.

Until there is something to worry about, this seems more like worrying about someone who doesn't have financial means, legal expertise and a reasonable return on an investment in litigation. Good for you in trying to do your homework. But based upon the limited knowledge I have, I wonder whether you need to concern yourself or are best served waiting to see what she does and how to best respond with specificity. Good luck.

 

[moonj]

The case never happened and probably wouldn't have happened even if you were served properly because of the above - can't sue in civil court using a criminal statute.

It did happen as I have the case number for it and the Clerk of Court has confirmed it was dismissed sua sponte. I just don't have the dockets for the state case because Virginia state documents do not go to PACER and are otherwise not available online. I'd probably have to email the Clerk and pay a scanning fee.

You're saying she filed a case or attempted to file a case.

She filed a case, it was rejected by the Judge the same day. I'll just give you the papers. See attached.

injunctions and TROs have anything to do with you

I run a XenForo Forum identical to the one your website uses. A user (i.e. an identical relationship you have to me) has an active TRO/Injunction from her and has written her name on the website. We maintain archives on the website of posts, other websites, and audio visual work. It is critical to the website's purpose that archives never get deleted without a proper court order. Her litigation is dual-purposed to (a) remove these archives, (b) receive money.

Until there is something to worry about, this seems more like worrying about someone who doesn't have financial means, legal expertise and a reasonable return on an investment in litigation. Good for you in trying to do your homework. But based upon the limited knowledge I have, I wonder whether you need to concern yourself or are best served waiting to see what she does and how to best respond with specificity. Good luck.

That's my fear. It's a gamble either way. If I sit and wait and hope that the system works and frivolous litigation is dumped out as efficiently as it has in the attached documents, there's no worry. If she forum shops and finds a judge willing to grant a default judgement, then things become exponentially more complicated for me.

 

[army judge]

Michael, I'm sure you're aware of it, but I'll mention it for the uniformed, "removal jurisdiction".

Ah, yes, Professor; the bane of many 1Ls. LOL

2.7 Removal Jurisdiction | Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys

Removal jurisdiction is a mechanism enabling a federal court to try a case within its original jurisdiction.

Removal provides a federal forum for a defendant wishing to litigate certain claims in federal, rather than state court, also allows a defendant in diversity cases filed in the plaintiff's home state court to file for removal to the plaintiff's state, if he or she is disadvantaged (compared to the plaintiff - a very simplified explanation, to say the least).

 

[army judge]

That's my fear. It's a gamble either way. If I sit and wait and hope that the system works and frivolous litigation is dumped out as efficiently as it has in the attached documents, there's no worry. If she forum shops and finds a judge willing to grant a default judgement, then things become exponentially more complicated for me.

You have little to fear, if you retain counsel.

You might have much to fear if you continue to attempt pro se resolutions.

 

[moonj]

You have little to fear, if you retain counsel.

I can't retain council because I'm an undergrad living by himself with a net worth of about zero dollars and zero cents by generous estimates.

Removal jurisdiction is a mechanism enabling a federal court to try a case within its original jurisdiction.

This might be more useful to me because her litigation could be considered a SLAPP, which Virginia has laws against.

Edit: I should add I've not 'attempted' anything. Everything that's happened so far has been her versus the courts, sua sponte. I'm reading, learning, and engaging people more knowledgeable than I to build an emergency vehicle in case waiting this crazy lady out does not work.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

@army judge - Yes, there is removal. But that isn't what a pro se federal litigant wants because it would be economically devastating to his or her case and effectively ends it.

I found the discussion about the plaintiff and the history behind it. All I can say is... wow. Here is what happened. Forum discusses the lives of others and what seems to be publicly accessible information. Typically those discussed are on the wrong end of the Bell Curve of society's mainstream people. In this instance the victim has issues with a former boyfriend who is obsessed with her but his actions are limited to words on how he intends to win her back (and I didn't see any threat of danger, bodily harm, etc.) The forum is really a secondary source of the information and I don't see how anyone can compel the removal of the discussions. If you want to talk about causes of action, the only one that immediately comes to mind is "negligent infliction of emotional distress." If I understand correctly, the issue that the victim wants to raise is that there is a restraining order against the member from harassment but we don't know (a) the contents of that TRO; and (b) whether there was anything actually posted on the forum because it seems that the most "harmful" content was posted elsewhere and the forum consists mostly of a discussion of what is posted elsewhere. The victim wants to exercise something similar to a right to be forgotten and also remove discussions from the original poster's website - correct me if I'm mistaken regarding anything significant.

After reading who is involved, the chances of this going anywhere are probably zero (from my experience.) The plaintiff has no funding and ostensibly a very limited understanding of civil lawsuits. The defendant is essentially judgment proof. The courts have already booted her before. And the case itself may have no legitimate cause of action and the amount of damages will be a challenge to prove given the already public nature of the events. I can understand that the victim might not like the discussion about her past dalliances and how ridiculous the facts of this case appear to be.

This is not legal advice and it is a personal opinion solely based upon the very limited information I have and which I've read. From my take, odds are good that this is not going anywhere and that the concern is more about how the nature of the forum can be seen as one that can be somewhat unpalatable to others and possibly give rise to an action action. About as likely as would be the point of bringing a SLAPP lawsuit against someone like this. Just a thought. And keep in mind that if your forum is about discussing the acts and lives of others, you should keep a close eye on its boundaries.

 

[moonj]

The victim wants to exercise something similar to a right to be forgotten and also remove discussions from the original poster's website - correct me if I'm mistaken regarding anything significant.

Guilty as charged.

If you don't think there's anything based on that, your opinion will fall in line with several other people with J.Ds who've said similar things. Essentially: Ignore it, until you can't.


If you're interested in this, there's another case you might want to look into. Check up on Monsarrat v. Zaiger.

 

[army judge]

Amazing what some people will do "just because".

I'm sure President Trump would love to have everyone say affectionate things about him, as would every elected official.

Never going to happen.

Of course, a president is a public figure, but you could could insert almost any name you want, people do love to hear good things about themselves.

Once you enter the public arena, you've painted a target on your back.

Maybe @moonj you should open a website that ONLY allows people to select comments that are taken from a list of flattering phrases, and "make nice" memes?????

 

[moonj]

Maybe @moonj you should open a website that ONLY allows people to select comments that are taken from a list of flattering phrases, and "make nice" memes?????

I'm sure that would make many people very happy, haha.

I suppose it's worth noting that the site does not ever select people from private life, people tend to find us. No one's ever cracked open a phone book and said "lets make stuff up about this person", so we're pretty well covered, esp. with the CDA.

 

[army judge]

I'm sure that would make many people very happy, haha.

I suppose it's worth noting that the site does not ever select people from private life, people tend to find us. No one's ever cracked open a phone book and said "lets make stuff up about this person", so we're pretty well covered, esp. with the CDA.

I'm sure you are.
You've experienced many times over the fringe nutballs.