Buy This Entire Record For
Coach, Inc. v. Dyer's General Store & Outlet
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division
February 25, 2014
Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc., Plaintiffs,
Dyer’s General Store and Outlet, Kimberly Dyer, and David L. Dyer, individually and d/b/a Dyer’s General Store and Outlet, Defendants.
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, JUDGE
Defendants David L. Dyer, Kimberly Dyer, and Dyer’s General Store and Outlet (“Dyer’s General”) have filed a pro se Answer to the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. [Filing No. 6.] The Court notes that corporations cannot appear pro se, but must appear through an attorney. Nocula v. UGS Corp., 520 F.3d 719, 725 (7th Cir. 2008). While individual Defendants Kimberly Dyer and David Dyer may continue to represent themselves in this litigation, Dyer’s General cannot represent itself and the Dyers cannot represent Dyer’s General either. See In re IFC Credit Corp., 663 F.3d 315, 318 (7th Cir. 2011) (“individuals are permitted to litigate pro se, though not to represent other litigants”); 28 U.S.C. § 1654.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that, should Dyer’s General intend to participate in this litigation, it must appear by counsel and file an ...