526 F. App'x 49
2d Cir.2013Background
- Appellant Gerardo Sanchez, pro se, appeals from district court orders dismissing his complaint and granting leave to replead for claims allegedly belonging to a corporation.
- District court granted motions to dismiss on Rule 12(b)(6)/(7) grounds and allowed repleading with proper corporate party.
- Court held Sanchez could not represent a corporation or entities in which he had sole ownership or membership.
- Appellant claimed Polonia owned claims and assigned them to him, but assignment to a layperson is barred.
- Appellant's notices of appeal covered non-final orders; there was no appeal from the final order and judgment, limiting appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has appellate jurisdiction over non-final orders | Sanchez argues appeals from non-final orders. | Defendants contend lack of jurisdiction for non-final orders. | Jurisdiction existed for the non-final orders cited. |
| Whether Sanchez could sue on behalf of a corporation | Polonia's claims were assigned to Sanchez. | A layperson cannot represent a corporation. | Court affirmed dismissal for improper representation of a corporation. |
| Whether the district court properly required an amended complaint naming the proper corporate entity | Amended complaint should specify the corporate plaintiff. | Proper corporate entity must be named; layperson cannot proceed pro se for a corporation. | Affirmed; required amendment through counsel. |
| Whether assignment of corporate claims to a layperson is permissible for pro se litigation | Claims assigned to Sanchez by Polonia. | Assignment to a layperson is barred. | Assignment to a layperson barred; cannot proceed pro se for corporation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slayton v. Am. Express Co., 460 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2006) (jurisdiction over non-final orders and notice of appeal timing guidance)
- Community Bank, N.A. v. Riffle, 617 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam; notice of appeal timing after non-final orders governs review)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (finality of judgments for appellate review; missing timely appeal limits review)
- Johnson v. Smithsonian Inst., 189 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 12(b)(7) dismissals)
- Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (liberal notice pleading; standard for de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6))
- Berrios v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 564 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2009) (layperson may not represent corporate interests)
- Jones v. Niagra Frontier Transp. Auth., 722 F.2d 20 (2d Cir. 1983) (pro se litigant cannot attest to corporation ownership; corporate litigation through counsel)