Zapata v. McHugh, 296 Neb. 216

Background

John Zapata filed suit pro se styled “an individual and as an Assignee,” asserting claims that arose from alleged damages to Coljo Investments, LLC’s leased premises and asserting he had an assignment of Coljo’s claims.
The complaint and related disclosures alleged unpaid rent and repair costs tied to McHugh Metal Brokerage, LLC and Donald McHugh.
At a pretrial conference the court questioned whether Zapata, a nonlawyer, could prosecute assigned claims originally belonging to an LLC; the parties were ordered to brief the issue.
The district court dismissed the action, concluding that an LLC (and claims arising from an LLC) cannot be litigated pro se and that an assignment to a lay assignee cannot be used to evade the rule requiring attorney representation.
The court deemed Zapata’s filings a nullity for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and rejected Timeliness objections because the filings themselves were void.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a lay assignee may prosecute in forma propria claims that belonged to an LLC	Zapata argued he was the proper party as assignee and therefore entitled to proceed pro se under the statutes permitting parties to represent themselves	Defendants argued that business entities (including LLCs) must be represented by counsel and assignment to a layperson cannot circumvent that rule	Assignee may not proceed pro se; suit dismissed because claims deriving from an LLC require licensed counsel
Whether an individual-captioned plaintiff who is also an assignee can avoid the prohibition on corporate self‑representation	Zapata relied on caption/listing as an individual and assignee to claim a pro se right	Defendants/ court pointed to substance of pleadings showing claims derive from the LLC, not personal claims of Zapata	Captioning alone does not control; capacity is determined by pleadings — Zapata had no independent individual claim
Whether prosecuting assigned corporate claims pro se constitutes unauthorized practice of law	Zapata argued §§ 7‑101/7‑110 allow a proper party to prosecute in person	Defendants argued nonlawyer prosecution of another entity’s claims is unauthorized practice and nullity	Court held bringing assigned corporate claims pro se is unauthorized practice and filings are a nullity
Whether the timing of the challenge to unauthorized practice barred dismissal	Zapata contended defendants raised the issue untimely	Court held timeliness objection fails because the pleadings were void as a matter of law; dismissal was proper	Challenge was timely/effective; dismissal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381 (11th Cir. 1985) (assignment cannot be used to permit layperson to litigate corporate claims)
Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Authority, 722 F.2d 20 (2d Cir. 1983) (corporations cannot appear pro se; rule is widely recognized)
Bischoff v. Waldorf, 660 F. Supp. 2d 815 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (policy reasons require attorney representation for corporate-related claims; assignee may not evade)
Steinhausen v. HomeServices of Neb., 289 Neb. 927 (Neb. 2015) (Nebraska precedent rejecting pro se litigation of LLC claims by owner; ‘‘abstractions cannot appear pro se’’)
Shamey v. Hickey, 433 A.2d 1111 (D.C. 1981) (assignee prosecuting corporate claims in own name may be a subterfuge and must be dismissed)
Eli’s, Inc. v. Lemen, 256 Neb. 515 (Neb. 1999) (assignee is proper party but takes subject to defenses and limitations of assignor)