In re Rouge House, LLC
246 So. 3d 580
La. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Rouge House, LLC appealed the district court judgment denying its application for a Class A Restaurant Beer and Liquor Permit; the appeal was filed via trial counsel Ernest L. Jones.
- Tracy Riley, member-manager of Rouge House and not an attorney, attempted to enroll pro se and file briefs on behalf of Rouge House after Jones declined to represent the company on appeal.
- This Court originally permitted Riley to enroll pro se and extended briefing time, but later vacated those orders and directed Jones to confirm his representation or withdraw; Rouge House was given 30 days to retain counsel and file an appellant brief.
- Jones filed a statement saying he would not represent Rouge House on appeal; no substitute counsel filed a brief by the Court’s deadline, and post-deadline motions to enroll counsel, extend time, or stay were filed.
- The Court held that a corporate entity like Rouge House must be represented by counsel, Riley could not represent the LLC pro se, the late motions were untimely, and dismissed the appeal as abandoned for failure to file a brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rouge House may proceed on appeal without counsel | Rouge House (through Riley) sought to proceed or have Riley represent it pro se | ATC argued corporate entities must be represented by counsel and Riley is not an attorney | Held: LLC must be represented by counsel; Riley cannot represent Rouge House on appeal |
| Whether Riley may appear pro se as an appellant | Riley asserted she was an appellant and sought to represent herself | ATC noted Riley was not a party who filed an appeal in lower court | Held: Riley is not an appellant; she did not file a timely appeal in the district court |
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed for abandonment for failure to file a brief | Rouge House sought extensions and later attempted to enroll new counsel after deadlines | ATC relied on Uniform Rules requiring briefs by deadline and notice before dismissal | Held: Appeal dismissed as abandoned under Rule 2-8.6 for failure to file brief within ordered 30 days |
| Whether post-deadline motions (enroll counsel, stay, extensions) can revive appeal | Rouge House/Riley filed motions after brief due date requesting enrollment/extension/stay | ATC argued motions were untimely and could not be granted under Rule 2-12.8 | Held: Motions denied as untimely; Court lacks authority to grant extensions after due date when hearing would be delayed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bankston v. Tasch, LLC, 40 So.3d 495 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (LLC must be represented by counsel; entity distinct from shareholder)
- Torregano v. Imperium Builders S., LLC, 212 So.3d 638 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (same principle regarding entity representation)
- Deal v. Lexing-Powell, 824 So.2d 541 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (nonlawyer corporate officer cannot represent corporation on appeal)
- Talley v. Hughes, 438 So.2d 263 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (failure to file brief per rules requires dismissal as abandoned)