ACR Restaurants, Inc. v. Rice Restaurant Group, LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ACR Restaurants, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Rice Restaurant Group, LLC; Torrest
Rice, also known as TJ Rice, also known
as Torrest Rice, Jr.; Rice International,
Inc.; Bank of America, N.A.;
Defendants.
No. 26-cv-1045 (KMM/EMB)
ORDER
Plaintiff ACR Restaurants, Inc. (“ACR”) brought this action in state court, and on
February 4, 2026, Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”) removed it to federal
court. ACR asserts claims for breach of contract and other equitable claims against BOA.
In addition, ACR brings claims of breach of contract and fraud against Defendants Rice
Restaurant Group, LLC (“RRG”), Rice International, Inc. (“Rice International”), and
Torrest Rice. (Am. Compl., Dkt. 11.) On April 20, 2026, Mr. Rice filed a motion to
dismiss in which he argues that ACR’s unjust-enrichment claims against RRG and
himself should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and all claims against Rice
International should be dismissed for insufficient service of process. (Dkt. 14.)
Mr. Rice is not an attorney, but he has filed the motion to dismiss on his own
behalf and on behalf of RRG and Rice International. Mr. Rice may proceed pro se in this
litigation. He can represent his own interests insofar as ACR has asserted claims against
him personally. 28 U.S.C. § 1654; see, e.g., Hunter v. Doe, No. 5:18-CV-05011-JLV, 2018
CASE 0:26-cv-01045-KMM-EMB Doc. 16 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 3

2
WL 1569753, at *1 (D.S.D. Mar. 30, 2018) (“As a general matter of federal law, an
individual proceeding in federal court has the right to present his case pro se. . . .”
(quoting Leftridge v. Connecticut State Trooper Officer No. 1283, 640 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir.
2011).
But corporations and limited liability companies cannot proceed pro se in federal
court. Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 857 (8th Cir. 1996);
LeDuc Gifts & Specialty Prods., LLC v. Sachs, 363 F. Supp. 3d 980, 981 (D. Minn. 2018)
(citing Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp., 86 F.3d at 857); SEC v. Lawton, No. 09-cv-
(ADM/AJB), 2011 WL 1467742, at *1 (D. Minn. Apr. 18, 2011) (explaining that the
defendant, who was not an attorney, was not permitted to “file motions on behalf of” an
LLC business entity). Because Mr. Rice is not licensed counsel, he may not represent
RRG and Rice International in this action. The Court cautions RRG and Rice
International that, if these entities wish to defend themselves against ACR’s claims in this
litigation, they must retain counsel to do so. If RRG and Rice International fail to retain
counsel admitted to practice before this Court, that may result in the entry of default
against those entities. See, e.g., Razor Capital, LLC v. HP Debt Exchange, LLC, No. 13-
cv-272 (MJD/JSM), 2015 WL 137617, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 7, 2015) (citing cases holding
that entry of default is appropriate where artificial business entities fail to retain counsel).
Because Mr. Rice filed the pending motion to dismiss on behalf of two artificial
business entities that he cannot represent in federal court, the Court strikes the motion
without prejudice. This Order does not prevent Mr. Rice from filing a motion to dismiss
on his own behalf with respect to the claims ACR has asserted against him. Nor does it
CASE 0:26-cv-01045-KMM-EMB Doc. 16 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 3

3
prevent him from, alternatively, filing an answer to the complaint concerning the claims
asserted against him personally. The Court will give him time to do either. But he cannot
file either on behalf of RRG or Rice International. Similarly, this Order does not prevent
RRG or Rice International from filing a timely motion or answer to the complaint if they
promptly retain counsel.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 14) is STRICKEN without prejudice as
explained in this Order.
2. The deadline for Defendants Torrest Rice, Rice Restaurant Group, LLC, and
Rice International, Inc. to answer or otherwise respond to ACR’s Amended
Complaint is extended to no later than June 15, 2026.1
Date: April 22, 2026 s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge
1 At least based on this Court’s initial review, the record in this case suggests
Mr. Rice and RRG currently have a deadline of May 2, 2026 to answer or otherwise
respond to the complaint by virtue of the executed waiver of service that ACR sent to
them on March 3, 2026. (See Dkt. 9); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3). It also appears that, at least
as of April 15, 2026 (the date on the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 14)), Mr. Rice believed that
service of process on Rice International, Inc. was not effective. Moreover, since Mr. Rice
and RRG executed the waiver of service, ACR has filed an Amended Complaint and the
Clerk of Court has issued summons as to all three of these Defendants. Given these
circumstances, the Court finds that extending the deadline for all three Defendants will
allow time for RRG and Rice International to engage counsel to represent them in this
litigation, and coordinating the deadline for all three will create the most efficient
approach to this early stage of the litigation. Nothing in this Order precludes any party
from properly seeking an extension of the consolidated June 15, 2026 deadline.
CASE 0:26-cv-01045-KMM-EMB Doc. 16 Filed 04/22/26 Page 3 of 3