Erhinyo v. Google LLC

Docket 3:25-cv-01308

Filed
2025-10-30
Terminated
Not recorded
Case type
cv

Outcome

No sourced outcome is recorded. A termination date alone does not establish who prevailed.

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JOHN ERHINYO, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 3:25-cv-1308-MMH-SJH GOOGLE LLC, Defendant. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff, John Erhinyo, initiated this action on October 30, 2025, by filing a Complaint for Damages for the Unlawful Deletion of Plaintiff’s Proprietary Trade Secret (Doc. 1; Complaint). See generally Complaint. In the Complaint, Erhinyo purports to “bring[] this action on his own behalf and on behalf of his interests in ALLBEAMS INC.” See id. ¶ 13. While Erhinyo may represent himself pro se in this matter, he may not represent ALLBEAMS INC. See Local Rule 2.02(b)(2), United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)) (“A party, other than a natural person, can appear through the lawyer only.”). Indeed, a corporation “is an artificial entity that can act only through agents, cannot appear pro se, and must be represented by counsel.” See Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 13881, 13885 (11th Cir. 1985); SEC v. Merchant Capital, LLC, 486 F. App'x 98, 94 n.1 (11th Cir. 2012) (“It is well established ... that a business organization cannot appear pro se and must be represented by counsel, not merely by a stockholder or officer.”). As such, Erhinyo is not permitted to act on ALLBEAMS INC.’s behalf. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: To the extent ALLBEAMS INC. brings claims in this action, ALLBEAMS INC. must be represented by counsel. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 4th day of November, 2025. United States District Judge Lc35 Copies to: Pro Se Party

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.