Roundtree v. Reynolds
2:23-cv-00552
E.D. Wis.May 29, 2024Background
- Joshua Roundtree, an incarcerated plaintiff, sued Michelle Reynolds and Uncaged Minds Publishing (UMP) alleging breach of contract regarding the publication of his books.
- The Court initially believed UMP was an Illinois LLC but later determined, based on submissions and research, that UMP is a sole proprietorship operated by Michelle Reynolds in Wisconsin, distinct from Uncaged Minds Publishing LLC (UMPLLC).
- Donald Reynolds (associated with UMPLLC) was found not to be a relevant party for this suit; his filings were stricken from the record.
- Both plaintiff and defendants are proceeding pro se (without attorneys), and the Court clarified procedures for representation and the progression of the case.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but the Court denied the motion without prejudice due to procedural deficiencies and improper timing.
- The case is set to proceed to discovery with the Court providing structured instructions due to both parties being unrepresented and the plaintiff being incarcerated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UMP is an LLC and must have counsel | UMP is sole proprietorship; no LLC involvement. | UMP is a sole proprietorship (not LLC); not required to have counsel. | Court held UMP (sole proprietorship) need not appear through counsel; Michelle Reynolds can proceed pro se. |
| Subject matter jurisdiction | Court has jurisdiction; plaintiff suffered damages from breach. | Seeks dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. | Motion to dismiss denied without prejudice for procedural reasons; issue reserved for later review. |
| Party status of Donald Reynolds/UMPLLC | No claims alleged against UMPLLC or Donald Reynolds. | Donald Reynolds/UMPLLC not part of contractual dealings. | Court struck Donald Reynolds' filings; UMPLLC not a party to the current suit. |
| Progression to fact discovery | Discovery necessary to substantiate breach and damages claims. | Disputes existence of signed contract and scope of payments/work. | Court ordered both sides to produce documentary evidence and proceed to discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2008) (A sole proprietorship may litigate pro se since it has no legal identity apart from the proprietor)
- Jeroski v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Rev. Comm’n, 697 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2012) (Sole proprietorships can result in personal liability for the owner in lawsuits)
- York Group, Inc. v. Wuxi Taihu Tractor Co., 632 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2011) (A proprietorship is merely a name under which the owner does business)
- Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1997) (Recognition of personal liability in sole proprietorship contexts)