Single Mind Consulting, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINT
AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS TC 5484 	Page 1 of 2
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
REGULAR DIVISION
TriMet and Lane Transit District
Payroll Taxes
SINGLE MIND CONSULTING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
State of Oregon,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
TC 5484
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is again before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on August
14, 2025. Defendant’s first ground for dismissal is that Plaintiff’s complaint is defective because
Plaintiff is a legal entity that purported to file a complaint not signed by an Oregon-licensed
attorney. Under ORS 9.320, a party other than a “natural person” may “appear[ ]” in court only
by attorney unless a statutory exception applies.1 See also Tax Court Rule (TCR) 1 F(1)
(“Entities including * * * corporations * * * must appear through an attorney unless a specific
statutory exception applies.”).
To “appear” includes filing a pleading, which includes a complaint. See, e.g., TCR 7
C(4)(a) (directing defendant served with summons to “appear” by filing a “motion” or “answer”)
(internal quotation marks omitted); TCR 13 B (allowable pleadings include a complaint). All
pleadings must be signed, and a pleading will be stricken if not signed “unless it is signed
promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader * * *.” TCR 17 A, B.
1 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2023 edition.

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINT
AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS TC 5484 	Page 2 of 2
In its order of September 3, 2025, the court directed Plaintiff to cure the defect in its
complaint on or before September 15, 2025, by filing a complaint signed by an Oregon-licensed
attorney. See Hartman v. Dept. of Rev., 19 OTR 571 (2009) (declining to strike legal entity’s
complaint signed by non-attorney where attorney submitted signed copy two weeks after
Defendant’s motion to dismiss). As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not done so.
After reviewing the motion and being fully advised of the premises, the court finds that
Plaintiff’s complaint must be stricken and this case must be dismissed.2 Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.
Dated this 22nd day of September, 2025.
2 The court does not reach Defendant’s other asserted grounds for dismissal.