LCS v. KRATOVIL (2020)

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to appoint counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the district court's order filed April 29, 2019, be affirmed. The district court correctly held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over James Kratovil because Mark and Cheryl Tracy failed to demonstrate that Kratovil is domiciled in or maintains his principal place of business in the District of Columbia and failed to show that the exercise of specific jurisdiction would comport with the District of Columbia's long-arm statute. See Livnat v. Palestinian Auth., 851 F.3d 45, 56 (D.C. Cir. 2017); FC Inv. Grp. LC v. IFX Markets, Ltd., 529 F.3d 1087, 1094–95 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

Moreover, to the extent the Tracys are seeking relief on behalf of LCS Outreach Ministries, they are unable to do so. It is not permissible for a party who “is not a member of the bar of any court ․ to appear ․ as counsel for others.” Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1984); 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (providing for parties to appear personally or by counsel); see also Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202, 113 S.Ct. 716, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993) (“[A] corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam