FSM SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION

Cite as FSM Dev. Bank v. Arthur,12 FSM Intrm. 18 (Pon. 2003)

[12 FSM Intrm. 18]

DOROTHY JACKSON,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,

vs.

PACIFIC PATTERN, INC., a corporation,
individually and dba ISLAND ENGINEERS AND
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, HUBERT K.
YAMADA, individually and dba ISLAND
ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

Defendants/Counterclaimants/
Third-Party Plaintiffs,

vs.

FSM DEVELOPMENT BANK,

Third-Party Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1999-033

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM

Martin Yinug
Associate Justice

Decided: July 24, 2003

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff:                                Stephen V. Finnen, Esq.
                                                         Law Offices of Saimon & Associates
                                                         P.O. Box 1450
                                                         Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

For the Defendant:                           Craig D. Reffner, Esq.
  (Pacific Pattern)                              Law Office of Fredrick L. Ramp
                                                         P.O. Box 1480
                                                         Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

For the Defendant:                           Herbert Yamada, pro se
                                                         P.O. Box 567
                                                         Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

For the Third-Party Defendant:        James Woodruff, Esq.
                                                         P.O. Box M
                                                         Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

[12 FSM Intrm. 19]

*    *    *    *

HEADNOTES

Attorney, Trial Counselor and Client – Withdrawal of Counsel

When counsel who signed an answer to the amended complaint on behalf of both defendants and appeared for both defendants, only withdrew from representing one defendant, they remain counsel for the other. Jackson v. Pacific Pattern, Inc., 12 FSM Intrm. 18, 19 (Pon. 2003).

Civil Procedure – Dismissal; Civil Procedure – Parties

Absent an order dismissing it, a defendant is still a party despite its deletion from the case caption. Jackson v. Pacific Pattern, Inc., 12 FSM Intrm. 18, 19 (Pon. 2003).

Business Organizations – Corporations; Business Organizations – Sole Proprietorship

The designation "d/b/a" means "doing business as" but is merely descriptive of the person or corporation who does business under some other name. Doing business under another name does not create an entity distinct from the person operating the business. The individual who does business as a sole proprietor under one or several names remains one person, personally liable for all his obligations. So also with a corporation which uses more than one name. Jackson v. Pacific Pattern, Inc., 12 FSM Intrm. 18, 20 (Pon. 2003).

Civil Procedure – Parties

A d/b/a is not a party. Jackson v. Pacific Pattern, Inc., 12 FSM Intrm. 18, 20 (Pon. 2003).

*    *    *    *

COURT'S OPINION

MARTIN YINUG, Associate Justice:

On July 18, 2003, the plaintiff Dorothy Jackson ("Jackson") moved for enlargement of time – until August 11, 2003 – to file her pre-trial statement. Good cause appearing, the motion is granted.

Jackson also contends in its motion that defendant/ counterclaimant/third-party plaintiff Pacific Pattern, Inc., does not have counsel, and that as a corporation it cannot proceed pro se, but must have counsel. However, a review of this file discloses that Fred Ramp's office is still counsel of record for Pacific Pattern, Inc. The September 6, 2002 motion to withdraw; the October 7, 2002 supplement to the motion; and the May 1, 2003 renewal of the motion all sought leave to withdraw from representation of Hubert K. Yamada ("Yamada") only. The December 3, 1999 answer to the amended complaint, and the January 14, 2002 third-party complaint, signed by Fred Ramp and Craig Reffner respectively, were filed on behalf of both defendants, Pacific Pattern, Inc., and Yamada. Having appeared in this case for both of the defendants, and having withdrawn from representing only Yamada, Fred Ramp's office remains counsel for defendant Pacific Pattern, Inc.

Also, Yamada's discovery papers filed on April 1, 2002, delete Pacific Pattern, Inc., from the case caption, and this error was perpetuated by the parties and the court thereafter. Absent an order dismissing Pacific Pattern, Inc., it is still a party. The caption is corrected as it appears on this order, and the parties are directed to make the similar correction on future filings.

Finally, a search through the court's file discloses at least one reference to Island Engineers and Construction Company as a "defendant." Motion for Leave of Court to File Third-Party Complaint at

[12 FSM Intrm. 20]

1 (Dec. 3, 2001). However, the allegation in Jackson's amended complaint filed on September 16, 1999, that both Yamada and Pacific Pattern, Inc., did business at relevant times as Island Engineers and Construction Company does not make Island Engineers and Construction Company a party to this action.

The designation "d/b/a" means "doing business as" but is merely descriptive of the person or corporation who does business under some other name. Doing business under another name does not create an entity distinct from the person operating the business. The individual who does business as a sole proprietor under one or several names remains one person, personally liable for all his obligations. So also with a corporation which uses more than one name.

Duval v. Midwest Auto City, Inc. , 425 F. Supp. 1381, 1387 (D. Neb. 1977). Thus, as of the filing of the amended complaint in this case on September 16, 1999, there have been only two defendants in this case, Pacific Pattern, Inc., and Hubert K. Yamada.

*    *    *    *