Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp.
| Decision Date | 17 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-611,83-611 |
| Parties | RICHDEL, INC., Appellant, v. SUNSPOOL CORPORATION, Appellee. Appeal |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Before FRIEDMAN, RICH and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
This is a request by Harry T. Whitehouse, the president of appellee, Sunspool Corporation, to represent his corporation, which is the appellee in this patent case. Mr. Whitehouse apparently is not a lawyer. He seeks to represent his corporation because "[t]he continuing accrual of professional fees ... has imposed a substantial financial hardship upon the Appellee."
Rule 7(a) of the Rules of this court provides that "[e]xcept for an individual appearing pro se, each party and amicus curiae must appear through an attorney who is authorized to practice before this court." Nothing in our Rules suggests that an exception is to be made because of the expense a corporation will incur by appearing through an attorney.
Both of our predecessor courts have held that only a lawyer, and not a corporate officer or stockholder, may appear for the corporation in litigation before the court. Algonac Mfg. Co. v. United States, 458 F.2d 1373, 1375 (Ct.Cl.1972); Whited Co. v. United States, No. 464-81C (Ct.Cl. Nov. 20, 1981) (); Contemporary Assocs., Inc. v. United States, No. 503-80C (Ct.Cl. Nov. 20, 1981) (); Roger & Gallet v. Janmarie, 245 F.2d 505, 508 (CCPA 1957). This is the general rule. See Southwest Express Co., Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 670 F.2d 53 (5 Cir.1982).
The request of Harry T. Whitehouse to appear in this case for the appellee, Sunspool Corporation, is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowland v. California Men Colony, Unit Ii Men Advisory Council
...146 (1989); Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, 722 F.2d 20, 22 (CA2 1983) (corporation); Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 699 F.2d 1366 (CA Fed.1983) (per curiam) (corporation); Southwest Express Co. v. ICC, 670 F.2d 53, 55 (CA5 1982) (per curiam) (corporation); In re Victo......
-
Donald A. Woodruff & the Duckegroupe, LLC v. United States
...he cannot afford an attorney in his motion to procceed in forma pauperis filed with the District Court. See Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 699 F.2d 1366, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (holding that the plaintiff's "substantial financial hardship" did not waive the rule requiring corporations to b......
-
Howell v. United States
...by an attorney."). This rule applies despite possible financial hardship imposed on the plaintiffs. See Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 699 F.2d 1366, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (holding that the plaintiff's "substantial financial hardship" did not waive the rule requiring corporations to be re......
-
Expressway Associates II v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. of Connecticut
...(1989); Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, 722 F.2d 20, 22 (2d Cir.1983) (corporation); Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 699 F.2d 1366 (Fed.Cir.1983) (per curiam) (corporation); Southwest Express Co. v. I.C.C., 670 F.2d 53, 55 (5th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (corporation); In r......