Paul Ashbaugh v. The Corporation of Bolivar

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1632
PAUL L. ASHBAUGH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
ASHBAUGH CUSTOM BUILDERS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CORPORATION OF BOLIVAR, a West Virginia municipality;
EDWARD HALL, Mayor, in his official capacity; DONNA CALLAR,
individually and in her official capacity; ROBERT HARDY,
individually and in his official capacity; JOHN HEAFER,
individually and in his official capacity; MARY RUTHERFORD,
individually and in her official capacity; CARRIE GAUTHIER,
individually and in her official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:05-cv-00129-JPB)
Submitted: August 30, 2012 Decided: September 11, 2012
Before KING, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Michael Cassell, CASSELL & PRINZ, PLLC, Charles Town, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Michael D. Lorensen, Jared M. Adams,
BOWLES RICE MCDAVID GRAFF & LOVE, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Paul L. Ashbaugh and Ashbaugh Custom Builders, LLC
(“ACB”), seek to appeal the district court’s order granting
summary judgment for Defendants on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
“[A] corporation may appear in the federal courts only
through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506
U.S. 194, 202 (1993). Thus, because Ashbaugh, acting pro se,
filed a notice of appeal on behalf of himself and ACB, the
notice was not adequate to perfect ACB’s appeal. See Becker v.
Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 763-68 (2001) (finding notice of
appeal defective for lack of proper signature as required by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a)). Although we brought the defect to ACB’s
attention on more than one occasion, ACB failed to promptly
correct the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). The
appearance of counsel on behalf of ACB more than eight months
after Ashbaugh noticed the appeal, and months after the
completion of informal briefing, occurred too late to cure the
defect. We therefore strike the notice of appeal as to ACB.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).
Further, we note that ACB, not Ashbaugh, is the owner
of the property at issue. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (“The
court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to
reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and
3
readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably
be questioned.”); Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 268 n.1
(1986) (noting that courts “are not precluded . . . from taking
notice of items in the public record”). Thus, as merely a
member of ACB, Ashbaugh does not have standing to appeal on his
own behalf the district court’s order. See W. Va. Code Ann.
§ 31B-2-201 (Michie 2009) (“A limited liability company is a
legal entity distinct from its members.”); W. Va. Code Ann.
§ 31B-5-501 (Michie 2009) (“A member is not a coowner of . . .
property of a limited liability company.”); Lujan v. Defenders
of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (stating elements of
standing); Smith Setzer & Sons, Inc. v. S.C. Procurement Review
Panel, 20 F.3d 1311, 1317 (4th Cir. 1994) (“It is considered a
fundamental rule that a shareholder — even the sole shareholder
— does not have standing to assert claims alleging wrongs to the
corporation.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We deny as moot the motion to strike Ashbaugh’s
pro se supplemental reply brief. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
4