Parlier v. CAN-ADA Crushing & Gravel Co.
441 P.3d 422
Alaska2019Background
- William Parlier filed a petition for review after the superior court entered default and dismissed counterclaims of Parlier Investments, LLC; McHenry Detective Agency, LLC; and two Sockeye Salmon, Inc. share certificates.
- Parlier asserted he was the sole owner/member of the two LLCs and owner of the cited stock certificates and attempted to represent those entities pro se.
- The superior court entered default and dismissal because the entities were not represented by licensed counsel; the order did not fully spell out its reasoning but was grounded in the entities’ lack of counsel.
- Parlier argued AS 22.20.040(a)(2) (corporation-must-be-represented-by-attorney rule) does not apply to LLCs because LLCs are not corporations.
- Respondents relied on that statute and other authority, and invoked AS 08.08.210(a) prohibiting unauthorized practice of law to argue non-attorneys cannot represent entities.
- The court granted review but affirmed the superior court’s order dismissing the LLCs’ counterclaims, denied review on other issues, and refused Parlier’s stay request as not shown presented below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an LLC may be represented in court by a non‑attorney member | Parlier: AS 22.20.040(a)(2) applies only to corporations; LLCs are not corporations, so he may represent them | Respondents: Non‑attorneys may not practice law; cases hold LLCs must be represented by counsel | An LLC must be represented by licensed counsel; a non‑attorney member may not litigate for the LLC (affirmed) |
| Whether Parlier’s attempted representation justified default/dismissal of the LLCs’ counterclaims | Parlier: He is sole owner/member and may represent the LLCs | Respondents: Unauthorized representation warranted default/dismissal | Court affirmed entry of default and dismissal of the LLCs’ counterclaims |
| Timeliness of review of earlier superior court orders (Feb & Aug 2018) | Parlier: Seeks review of those orders | Respondents: Not addressed substantively | Petition untimely as to those orders (review denied) |
| Request to stay proceedings pending related trial | Parlier: Requests stay until his fraudulent‑conveyance case is tried | Respondents: Stay issue not raised below | Stay denied; Parlier did not show he sought relief in superior court |
Key Cases Cited
- Christiansen v. Melinda, 857 P.2d 345 (Alaska 1993) (non‑attorneys cannot represent others in court)
- In re 69 N. Franklin Tpk., LLC, [citation="693 F. App'x 141"] (3d Cir. 2017) (LLC may not proceed pro se)
- Zapata v. McHugh, 893 N.W.2d 720 (Neb. 2017) (layperson cannot represent LLC in court)
- David R. Nicholson, Builder, LLC v. Jablonski, 163 A.3d 1048 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) (LLCs must litigate through licensed counsel)
- In re Rouge House, LLC, 246 So. 3d 580 (La. App. 2018) (member‑manager cannot represent LLC on appeal)