Derma Pen v. 4EverYoung Limited, 2:13-cv-00729

Derma Pen obtained a proposed final judgment and filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after a default certificate was entered against defendants.
Defendant Stene Marshall (pro se) filed two motions: (1) to strike part of plaintiff’s proposed findings and conclusions; and (2) to strike part of plaintiff’s proposed final judgment.
Marshall is not an attorney; corporate defendants have been unrepresented since their counsel withdrew in January 2017.
Marshall’s filings lacked cited legal authority and failed to attach or cite supporting discovery materials as required by local rules.
The clerk had entered default against all defendants and no defendant moved to vacate that default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c).
Derma Pen opposed both motions; the court heard Marshall’s replies and Denied both motions on procedural grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Marshall’s Motion to Strike Findings and Conclusions complies with local rules	Proposed findings are proper and objections should be considered	Motion lacks supporting authority and fails to attach cited discovery; court should consider objections	Denied — motion fails to comply with local rules requiring authority and supporting materials
Whether a defaulting party can contest liability in these filings	Judgment and findings reflect plaintiff’s evidence; default should stand	Marshall contests liability and factual findings	Denied — defaulting party cannot contest liability absent vacatur under Rule 55(c)
Whether Marshall may represent corporate defendants in objecting to the proposed final judgment	Objections to proposed judgment are timely and substantive	Marshall is not a lawyer; corporations cannot appear pro se, so he cannot object for them	Denied — non‑attorney may not represent corporations; objections by him are improper
Whether Marshall’s objections to the proposed final judgment were timely under local rule	Objections should be considered despite timing	Objections filed more than seven days after service; waived under DUCivR 54‑1(b)	Denied — objections untimely (filed after the 7‑day window)

VLM Food Trading Intern., Inc. v. Illinois Trading Co., 811 F.3d 247 (7th Cir. 2016) (defaulting party may not contest liability unless default is vacated)
Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 1996) (pro se filings are construed liberally)
Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 1994) (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (court is not advocate for pro se litigants)
Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002) (substance of motion controls over its label)
Duran v. Carris, 238 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2001) (ghostwriting counsel may be subject to sanctions)