Mitchell Adjusting International, LLC et al v. Bridge Funding Cap, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
MITCHELL ADJUSTING
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
V. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-cv-00128
BRIDGE FUNDING CAP, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
This case has been referred to me for all pretrial purposes. See Dkt. 7. I am
sua sponte issuing this memorandum and recommendation to suggest that the
court order the conditional dismissal of all claims belonging to Plaintiff Mitchell
Adjusting International, LLC (“MAI”) without prejudice unless MAI appears
through licensed counsel within 30 days from the date this memorandum and
recommendation is adopted.
On April 9, 2026, Andrew Mitchell, an incarcerated person proceeding pro
se, instituted this lawsuit against Defendants. Mitchell was a licensed public
adjuster. Mitchell provided his public adjusting services through MAI, a Texas
limited liability company. At all times, Mitchell has been the sole member of MAI.
Mitchell claims that Defendants operated a “predatory scheme of repeated account
freezes, coercive settlement extractions, and unlawful seizure of policyholder trust
funds held by MAI as a licensed public adjuster.” Dkt. 1 at 1. Mitchell asserts claims
for 	RICO, 	RICO 	conspiracy, 	wire 	fraud, 	breach 	of 	contract, 	economic
duress/voidance of settlements, conversion, unjust enrichment, and tortious
interference with business relations. Mitchell purports to bring this lawsuit
individually and as MAI. Mitchell cannot do this.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 04, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:26-cv-00128 Document 10 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their
own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are
permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. The right to
conduct one’s own cases personally is limited to one’s own interests. “It has been
the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the
federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit
II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993). This rule applies to all
“[a]rtificial business entities—such as limited liability companies, corporations,
and partnerships.” Alt. Materials, LLC v. TCH Constr. Grp., Inc., 339 F.R.D. 322,
324 (N.D. Fla. 2021).
To the extent that Mitchell has a personal claim against Defendants, Mitchell
may prosecute that claim himself. But to the extent that Mitchell seeks to prosecute
a claim belonging to MAI, such a claim may be prosecuted only through a licensed
attorney. See, e.g., Robinson v. Ashland Inc., No. 1:24-cv-97, 2024 WL 5158429,
at *8 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2024) (collecting cases and holding that “Plaintiffs, even
as sole owners of their LLC, lack standing to assert claims individually where the
cause of action belongs to the company.”).
“A district court may dismiss a claim on its own motion as long as the
procedure employed is fair.” Davoodi v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 755 F.3d 307, 310
(5th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). Fairness “requires both notice of the court’s intention
and an opportunity to respond.” Id. (quotation omitted). Here, Mitchell has both
the opportunity to object to this memorandum and recommendation and, in the
event it is adopted, 30 days to appear through counsel before this action is
dismissed without prejudice. That is fair.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, I recommend that the court order the
conditional dismissal of any claims belong to MAI without prejudice unless MAI
appears through licensed counsel within 30 days from the date this memorandum
and recommendation is adopted.
Case 3:26-cv-00128 Document 10 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
The 	parties 	have 	14 	days 	from 	service 	of 	this 	Memorandum 	and
Recommendation to file written objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections will preclude appellate review of
factual findings and legal conclusions, except for plain error.
SIGNED this ___ day of May 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00128 Document 10 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3