Lawrence v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission , 384 F. App'x 44 ( 2010 )

09-4921-cv
Lawrence v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUM M ARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUM M ARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUM M ARY ORDER IN A
DOCUM ENT FILED W ITH THIS COURT, A PARTY M UST CITE EITH ER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUM M ARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUM M ARY ORDER
M UST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held
at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 19th day of July, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
PETER W. HALL,
Circuit Judges.
__________________________________________
Carl Lawrence and Warwick Capital Management,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. 09-4921-cv
United States Securities and Exchange Commission,
Defendant-Appellee.
___________________________________________
FOR APPELLANT LAWRENCE: CARL LAWRENCE , pro se, Bronxville, New York.
FOR APPELLEE: CHRISTOPHER M. BRUCKMAN , Senior Counsel (Richard M.
Humes, Associate General Counsel, Melinda Hardy,
Assistant General Counsel, on the brief), United States
Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Robinson, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the appeal of Warwick Capital Management be DISMISSED, and the district
court’s judgment and its order denying plaintiffs-appellants’ motion for reconsideration be
AFFIRMED.
This is an appeal from the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to
dismiss the complaint of plaintiffs-appellants Carl Lawrence, pro se, and Warwick Capital
Management (“Warwick”), an unrepresented corporation, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and from the district court’s order denying the Appellants’
motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and
procedural history.
As an initial matter, Lawrence named Warwick as a plaintiff below and as a party joined
in the instant appeal. See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 256 (2d Cir. 1995) (This
Court will “construe notices of appeal liberally, taking the parties’ intentions into account.”). We
dismiss Warwick’s appeal because a corporation may not appear pro se or be represented by a
non-lawyer. See Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1308-10 (2d Cir. 1991)
(holding that a “layman” may not represent a separate legal entity).
We construe the notice of appeal as challenging both the district court’s order denying the
motion for reconsideration and the order dismissing the complaint. See Shrader, 70 F.3d at 256.
On appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, this
Court reviews the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.
2
See Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). Although Lawrence did not
raise any new arguments in the motion for reconsideration, we liberally construe his brief as
challenging the denial of the motion for reconsideration as well as the dismissal of the complaint.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court order denying a motion for relief from a final
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana,
162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir. 1998).
Having reviewed the record according to these principles, we affirm the district court’s
order and judgment for substantially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his report and
recommendation. We have considered all of the Appellants’ arguments on appeal and find them
to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal of Warwick Capital Management is
hereby DISMISSED and the district court’s judgment and its order denying the motion for
reconsideration are hereby AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3