Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Coach, Inc. v. Dyer's General Store and Outlet

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division

February 25, 2014

COACH, INC. and COACH SERVICES, INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
DYER'S GENERAL STORE AND OUTLET, KIMBERLY DYER, and DAVID L. DYER, individually and d/b/a Dyer's General Store and Outlet, Defendants.

ORDER [1]

JANE MAGNUS, 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. ยง 1654.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that, should Dyer's General intend to participate in this litigation, it must appear by counsel and file an Answer to the Complaint by March 13, 2014.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.