In Re 69 North Franklin Turnpike, LLC
693 F. App'x 141
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- 69 North Franklin Turnpike, LLC (the LLC) owned property subject to a mortgage in favor of PNC Bank; Grace S. Wong, an LLC shareholder, defaulted on the related loan.
- PNC obtained a final foreclosure judgment and scheduled a Sheriff’s Sale; Wong filed a pro se Chapter 11 petition on behalf of the LLC shortly before a scheduled sale, triggering postponements.
- Bankruptcy Court administratively dismissed the LLC’s case and entered a two-year bar on future filings, finding the petition filed in bad faith.
- Wong, not an attorney, repeatedly filed and argued pro se on behalf of the LLC despite explicit warnings from the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court that the LLC must be represented by counsel.
- The District Court dismissed the LLC’s appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s orders because the LLC was represented pro se by Wong; the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an LLC may prosecute an appeal pro se through its non‑lawyer member | Wong argued she could file and prosecute appeals on behalf of the LLC | PNC argued corporate entities must be represented by licensed counsel; a non‑attorney cannot represent the LLC | A corporate entity cannot proceed pro se; an LLC must be represented by licensed counsel (affirmed) |
| Whether dismissal of the appeal without opportunity to cure was improper | LLC argued it should have been allowed to cure the defect by retaining counsel | PNC argued Wong showed intent to proceed pro se despite warnings, so allowing cure would undermine the rule | Dismissal without opportunity to cure was proper given Wong’s persistent pro se representation and repeated warnings |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1993) (corporations and similar entities must appear through licensed counsel)
- United States v. Cocivera, 104 F.3d 566 (3d Cir. 1996) (same principle reiterated for entities in federal court)
- Instituto de Educacion Universal Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 209 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2000) (officer may file notice of appeal if corporation promptly retains counsel)
- Bigelow v. Brady, 179 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 1999) (same; temporary pro se filing may be tolerated if counsel quickly appears)
- D‑Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2004) (no cure where corporate officer clearly intends to proceed pro se and disregards court orders)