Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. v. Longview Plumbing & Heating Co.
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtGrosse, J.
— A trial court is vested with discretion to continue a proceeding pending against a corporation that is party to a merger as if the merger did not occur. Because the rules permitting pro se representation do not apply to corporations, a corporation subject to such a ruling must continue to be represented by an attorney even if the result of the merger leaves a partnership as the surviving entity. The trial court, therefore, did not err in entering a default judgment in favor of Longview Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., and Lloyd Enterprises, Inc., when Berry, Inc., failed to file an answer…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Krikava v. WebberCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1986
- Zimmerman v. KyteCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1988
- Sunde v. Contel of CaliforniaNevada Supreme Court · 1996
- United Accounts, Inc. v. Teladvantage, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Wetzel v. SchlenvogtNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2005
- Dutch Village Mall, LLC v. PellettiCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
- Cottringer v. Employment Security DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
- Biomed Comm, Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH BD.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2008
- Biomed Comm, Inc. v. Department of Health, Board of PharmacyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.