MR Crescent City, LLC v. TJ Biscayne Holdings LLC ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1432
MR CRESCENT CITY, LLC; MCCRARY CRESCENT CITY, LLC; MICHAEL
C. MCCRARY,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
TJ BISCAYNE HOLDINGS LLC; MARKET STREET PROPERTIES PALM
BEACH, LLC; STUART C. FISHER,
Defendants – Appellants,
and
EDWARD V. GIANNASCA, II; GIANNASCA CRESCENT CITY LLC,
CRESCENT CITY ESTATES, LLC; TAMARA J. FISHER,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:11-cv-01039-MJG)
Submitted: March 21, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Stuart C. Neil Fisher, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth B. Frank,
MURPHY, FALCON & MURPHY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Stuart C. Neil Fisher appeals the district court’s
order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order finding Fisher and
several of his codefendants in the bankruptcy suit jointly and
severally responsible for $181,221.73 in costs and attorneys’
fees, which it awarded to the parties who opposed the attempt by
Fisher and his codefendants to remove a Maryland state court
action to the bankruptcy court.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court as it pertains to Fisher. See TJ Biscayne Holdings,
LLC v. MR Crescent City, LLC, No. 1:11-cv-01039-MJG (D. Md. Mar.
2, 2012). Because Fisher’s fellow appellants TJ Biscayne
Holdings LLC and Market Street Properties Palm Beach, LLC are
not represented by an attorney in this court, we dismiss their
appeals of the district court’s order. See Rowland v.
California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“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.”); United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579,
581-82 (7th Cir. 2008) (LLCs, like corporations, are not
permitted to proceed pro se).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4