United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
D. CRABTREE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 15, 2019, plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint
against two corporate entities: The Promise Keepers, Inc.
(“The Promise Keepers”), and The Promise Keepers
417 Inc. (“The Promise Keepers 417”). Doc. 1. Her
Complaint identifies Ephraim Woods as the registered agent
for The Promise Keepers and Irma Dorsey as the registered
agent for The Promise Keepers 417. Now, Mr. Woods and Ms.
Dorsey have signed and filed several motions purporting to
seek relief on defendants' behalf. Mr. Woods has signed
and filed: (1) a “Judicial Demand and Notice”
(Doc. 21), purportedly for both defendants; (2) a Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 26) for defendant The Promise Keepers; and (3)
a “Motion to Object” (Doc. 28) for defendant The
Promise Keepers. And Ms. Dorsey has signed and filed: (1) a
“Judicial Demand and Notice”(Doc. 22),
purportedly for both defendants; (2) a Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 25) for defendant The Promise Keepers 417; and (3) a
“Motion to Object” (Doc. 29) for defendant The
Promise Keepers 417. Mr. Woods and Ms. Dorsey also have filed
motions titled “Notice and Demand Counterclaim”
(Docs. 23 & 24). These filings demand relief on behalf of
Mr. Woods and Ms. Dorsey.
only two defendants in this case are business
organizations-specifically, corporations. And generally, in
federal court, only an attorney admitted as a member of this
court's bar may represent a business organization.
Harrison v. Wahatoyas, L.L.C., 253 F.3d 552, 556 (10th
Cir. 2001) (citing Flora Constr. Co. v. Fireman's
Fund Ins. Co., 307 F.2d 413, 414 (10th Cir. 1962)
(“The rule is well established that a corporation can
appear in a court of record only by an attorney at
law.”)); Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1254 n.8
(10th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Neither Mr. Woods nor
Ms. Dorsey are admitted to practice before our court.
Accordingly, neither movant can seek relief for either one of
the defendants in this case. If defendants wish to seek
relief, they must do so through a properly admitted member of
this court's bar.
court exercises its discretion to strike Mr. Woods and Ms.
Dorsey's motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(1)
(“The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter. The court may act . . . on its
own.”); United States ex rel. Smith v. Boeing
Co., No. 05-1073-WEB, 2009 WL 2486338, at *3 (D. Kan.
Aug. 13, 2009) (“[T]he court has discretion on its own
to strike an insufficient defense, seeRule 12(f)(1).
. . . A defense is considered insufficient if it cannot
succeed, as a matter of law, under any circumstances.”
(citing Wilhelm v. TLC Lawn Care, Inc., No.
07-2465-KHV, 2008 WL 474265, at *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 19, 2008));
see also Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hurricane Logistics
Co., 216 F.R.D. 14, 15 n.3 (D.D.C. 2003) (“If a
corporate defendant does not retain counsel, the court may
strike the corporation's answer.” (citing
Donovan v. Road Rangers Country Junction, Inc., 736
F.2d 1004, 1005 (5th Cir. 1984)).
court also strikes Mr. Woods and Ms. Dorsey's motions
titled “Notice and Demand Counterclaim” (Docs. 23
& 24). Mr. Woods and Ms. Dorsey simply have added their
names as defendants to the case's captions on both
filings. Plaintiff never has named Mr. Woods or Ms. Dorsey as
a defendant. Thus, they cannot assert counterclaims against
plaintiff because plaintiff has asserted no claims against
court thus strikes the motions filed by Ephraim Woods and
Irma Dorsey (Docs. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, & 29)
because Mr. Woods and Ms. Dorsey are not members of this
court's bar and cannot seek relief on defendants'
behalf, and, as non-parties, they cannot assert
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the motions
filed by Ephraim Woods and Irma Dorsey (Docs. 21, 22, 23, 24,
25, 26, 28, & 29) are stricken from the record of this
IS SO ORDERED.
 The docket reflects that Ms. Dorsey
has filed this motion, and she has signed it. See
Doc. 22 at 9-10. But the first page of the motion represents
that Mr. Woods seeks the relief requested. Because Ms. Dorsey
has signed the filing, however, the court construes it as her
 The docket reflects that Ms. Dorsey
also has filed this motion, and she has signed it.
See Doc. 29 at 4-5. But the first page of this
motion also represents that Mr. Woods seeks the relief
requested. As with Doc. 22, because Ms. Dorsey has signed
Doc. 29, the court construes it as her filing.
 In four of their motions (Docs. 21,
22, 23, & 24), Mr. Woods and Ms. Dorsey add their names
to the case caption as if they were defendants. The rules do
not authorize persons to insert themselves as parties simply
by making a filing that says they are parties. The court does
not recognize Mr. Woods ...