Mitchell v. The LCF Group, Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
ANDREW J MITCHELL, 	§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v. 	3:26-cv-97
THE LCF GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On March 25, 2026, all pretrial matters in this case were referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Dkt. 9.
Judge Edison filed a memorandum and recommendation sua sponte on May 4,
2026, recommending that the court order the conditional dismissal of this lawsuit
without prejudice unless the plaintiff appears through licensed counsel within 30
days from the date the memorandum and recommendation is adopted. Dkt. 14.
On May 11, 2026, the plaintiff filed his objections to the memorandum and
recommendation. 	Dkt. 	18. 	The 	plaintiff 	simultaneously 	filed 	a 	motion 	for
appointment of counsel and a motion to stay, requesting the same relief requested
in his objections. Dkts. 19, 20. Because these motions request the same relief
requested in the plaintiff’s objections, the court will address these two motions
alongside the plaintiff’s objections. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C),
this court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:26-cv-00097 Document 25 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
[magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the court
may 	“accept, 	reject, 	or 	modify, 	in 	whole 	or 	in 	part, 	the 	findings 	or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). The court has carefully considered the objections; the memorandum and
recommendation; the pleadings; and the record. The court accepts Judge Edison’s
memorandum and recommendation and adopts it as the court’s opinion.
The plaintiff first objects that Judge Edison misapplied certain authorities
cited in his memorandum and recommendation, and that he treated as controlling
authority the opinion issued in M2 Technology, Inc. v. M2 Software, Inc., 589 F.
App’x 671 (5th Cir. 2014). Dkt. 18 at 2–3. This objection is overruled. “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). It is this centuries-old,
binding 	precedent 	that 	underpins 	Judge 	Edison’s 	memorandum 	and
recommendation.
Binding Fifth Circuit authority is not required for this court to follow the
uniform rule adopted by every federal court to confront the issue and hold that
where “the lay individual chose to accept the advantages of incorporation,” he
“must now bear the burdens of that incorporation; thus, he must have an attorney
present the corporation’s legal claims.” Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth.,
722 F.2d 20, 23 (2d Cir. 1983) (quotation omitted). The plaintiff claims to bring
Case 3:26-cv-00097 Document 25 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
his case as “the owner and operator of Mitchell Adjusting International LLC.”
Dkt. 1 at 2. Judge Edison acknowledged that, “[t]o the extent that Mitchell has a
personal claim against Defendant, Mitchell may prosecute that claim himself.”
Dkt. 14 at 2. But the only way that the plaintiff can advance claims belonging to his
LLC is through counsel; an assignment cannot be made to defeat this rule.
The plaintiff next objects that he has standing as the real party in interest
under Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008).
This objection is overruled. Sprint did not address whether a non-lawyer may
proceed pro se on behalf of a limited liability entity and has no bearing here. Nor
does the plaintiff’s federal restitution obligation provide a basis for the plaintiff, a
non-lawyer, to prosecute his LLC’s claims.
In the plaintiff’s third objection, he argues that he “has direct individual-
capacity claims” that are separate from his claims as his LLC’s assignee. To the
extent that is true, Judge Edison has already acknowledged that the plaintiff may
prosecute such claims himself. Dkt. 14 at 2. The plaintiff will be given an
opportunity to amend his complaint. In doing so, the plaintiff should be clear as to
which claims belong to him personally and not to his LLC.
In his final objection, the plaintiff argues that Judge Edison should have
considered appointing counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and Naranjo v.
Thompson, 809 F.3d 793 (5th Cir. 2015). This objection is overruled. The United
States Supreme Court held more than 30 years ago that § 1915 extends only to
natural persons. See Rowland, 506 U.S. at 208. Thus, the court has no power to
Case 3:26-cv-00097 Document 25 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
appoint counsel to a corporate plaintiff—or to a non-lawyer attempting to assert a
corporate plaintiff’s claims—under § 1915. While the Fifth Circuit has recognized a
district court’s “inherent power to appoint counsel for an insolvent corporate
criminal defendant,” this court is unaware of any authority that would support
appointing counsel for a corporate plaintiff in civil litigation. Naranjo, 809 F.3d
at 802. Assuming the court has such inherent power, the court declines to use it. If
the value of this litigation is as great as the plaintiff believes, he should have no
difficulty securing counsel on a contingency basis.
It is therefore ordered that:
(1) 	Judge 	Edison’s 	memorandum 	and 	recommendation, 	Dkt. 	14, 	is
approved and adopted in its entirety as the holding of the court;
(2) 	The plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended
complaint asserting claims solely in his individual capacity and not as
an assignee or the sole member of his LLC;
(3) 	The plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 19, is denied;
(4) 	This case is conditionally dismissed unless, within 30 days from the
entry of this order, the plaintiff appears through licensed counsel to
pursue his LLC’s claims or files an amended complaint asserting only
individual claims against the defendant and not as his LLC’s sole
member or as an assignee of his LLC’s claims; and
(5) 	The plaintiff’s motion to stay, Dkt. 20, is granted, in that all other
deadlines in this case are stayed for the next 30 days.
SIGNED on Galveston Island this 20th day of May 2026.
______________________________
JEFFREY VINCENT BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00097 Document 25 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4