Professional Documents
Culture Documents
)
DANIEL PARISI, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 10-0897-RJL
)
LAWRENCE W. SINCLAIR a/k/a “Larry Sinclair”, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
Plaintiffs, Daniel Parisi, Whitehouse.com Inc., Whitehouse Network LLC, and White
filed motion for an extension of time to answer the complaint filed by Lawrence W. Sinclair
a/k/a Larry Sinclair) (“Sinclair”) and his self-publishing corporation, Sinclair Publishing, Inc.
(“SPI”). (Dkt. No. 14). The complaint arises from Sinclair’s book, entitled “Barack Obama and
Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies and Murder?” In the book, Sinclair, a convicted criminal (Ex.
ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs filed this case on May 28, 2010, and Sinclair and SPI were served on June 7,
2010. (Dkt. Nos. 3, 4). Those defendants had until June 28, 2010 to file their answer. In
response to a request, plaintiffs’ counsel stated that he would discuss an appropriate extension of
time with counsel for Sinclair and SPI. (Dkt. No. 14 Ex. 1). However, it appears that Sinclair
has made no serious effort to find counsel for himself and SPI. On June 29, one day after their
answer was due, Sinclair and SPI filed a motion to extend. It should be denied.
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 15 Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 4
First, Sinclair signed the motion on behalf of SPI, a Florida corporation. (Ex. B). He is
not an attorney, let alone a member of the Bar of this Court. It is well-established that a
corporation cannot appear pro se and must be represented by counsel. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. §
1654; Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993); K.M.A., Inc. v. Gen.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 652 F.2d 398, 399 (5th Cir. 1981); Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764
F.2d 1381, 1384-86 (11th Cir. 1985); Flynn v. Thibodeaux Masonry, Inc., 311 F. Supp. 2d 30, 37
(D.D.C. 2004); Lennon v. McClorey, 3 F. Supp. 2d 1461, 1462 n.1 (D.D.C. 1998). Because SPI
Second, Sinclair and SPI’s motion indicates that they need additional time to find
counsel. However, the motion does not recite that they have made any effort to do so or have
tried and been unable to retain counsel. Absent such a showing and given plaintiffs’ willingness
to agree to an appropriate extension to counsel,1 it is reasonable to conclude that Sinclair and SPI
are seeking the additional time merely to delay this case. Delay is particularly inappropriate
here, where Sinclair and SPI have publicly accused plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel of lying and
other nefarious conduct since the complaint in this case was filed. (Ex. C).2
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the motion for an extension of time should be denied.
1
Plaintiffs have agreed to extensions requested by defendants Barnes & Noble and
Books-A-Million.
2
Sinclair's website also includes an unauthorized use of the copyrighted photograph of
plaintiffs' counsel. (http://www.larrysinclair.com/Parisi-v-Sinclair.html).
-2-
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 15 Filed 06/29/10 Page 3 of 4
Of Counsel:
5102877
-3-
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 15 Filed 06/29/10 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 29, 2010, a copy of the foregoing was served on counsel for
the parties that have appeared in the case by the Court’s ECF system and on the following by
Lawrence W. Sinclair
Sinclair Publishing, Inc.
9 Spring Drive
Port Orange, FL 32129
larry@larrysinclair4congress.com
s/ Richard J. Oparil
Richard J. Oparil (DC Bar No. 409723)
5102877