United States Of America v. Payton Roofing, Inc.
| United States Of America |
| Payton Roofing, Inc. |
| 9:2022cv81151 |
| July 29, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Donald M Middlebrooks |
| Labor: Other |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 0651 Occupational Safety/Health |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 14, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
PAPERLESS ORDER striking (DE #4 ) "Motion to Dismiss." According to the Complaint filed in this matter, Defendant Payton Roofing, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Coral Springs, Florida. (DE #1 para. 2). On September 13, 2022, Timothy Payton, of Payton Roofing, Inc., filed the instant "Motion to Dismiss." (DE #4 ). However, Payton Roofing, Inc. is an artificial entity which may not proceed pro se. See Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 138586 (11th Cir. 1985) ("The rule is well-established that a corporation is an artificial entity that can act only through agents, cannot appear pro se, and must be represented by counsel."). This general rule applies "even where the person seeking to represent the corporation is its president and major stockholder." Id. (citation omitted). Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss (DE #4 ) is STRICKEN. Defendant Payton Roofing, Inc. may defend itself in this action once it retains counsel who enters an appearance on its behalf. Failure to retain counsel and timely respond to the Complaint may result in default judgment against Defendant. Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 9/14/2022. (kal)
|
| Filing 4 STRICKEN PER ORDER DE#5- MOTION to Dismiss #1 Complaint, by Payton Roofing, Inc.. Responses due by 9/27/2022 (drz) Modified on 9/14/2022 (drz). |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Payton Roofing, Inc.. (pc) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge William Matthewman is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. (pc) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Payton Roofing, Inc.. Filing fees $ 402.00. USA Filer - No Filing Fee Required, filed by United States Of America. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summon(s) Summons, #3 Exhibit Exhibit A, #4 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Davis, Steven) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: United States Of America v. Payton Roofing, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: United States Of America | |
| Represented By: | Steven M. Davis |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Payton Roofing, Inc. | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
