-RBC Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company v. Sexton et al, No. 1:2011cv00265 - Document 16 (N.D. Ind. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER that defendant Thomas Funeral Home, d/b/a T.F.H. Inc must secure counsel or its Answer will be stricken. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 10/5/11. (jcp)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. DAVINA RENEE SEXTON, RHONDA SUE SEXTON, MAYNARD DEPEW, and THOMAS FUNERAL HOME, Defendants. Case No. 1:11-CV-265 OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this Court on August 4, 2011, seeking equitable relief under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( ERISA ) against Defendants Davina Renee Sexton, Rhonda Sue Sexton, Maynard Depew, and Thomas Funeral Home.1 (Docket # 1.) On September 19, 2011, Thomas Funeral Home, through its president, Thomas E. Drzewiecki, proceeding pro se, filed its Answer. (Docket # 11.) The Answer, however, reveals that Thomas Funeral Home is a corporation, T.F.H. Inc. (T.F.H. Inc. Answer 1.) Because it is a corporation, Defendant Thomas Funeral Home cannot proceed pro se in this action; it must be represented by counsel. See United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579, 581-82 (7th Cir. 2008) (stating that neither a corporation nor a limited liability company is permitted to litigate in federal court unless it is represented by a lawyer licensed to practice in 1 Accordingly, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331. 1 that court); Scandia Down Corp. v. Euroquilt, Inc., 772 F.2d 1423, 1427 (7th Cir. 1985) ( [C]orporations must appear by counsel or not at all. ). Therefore, Defendant Thomas Funeral Home d.b.a. T.F.H. Inc. must secure counsel or its Answer will be stricken. SO ORDERED. Entered this 5th day of October, 2011. /S/ Roger B. Cosbey Roger B. Cosbey, United States Magistrate Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.