ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE
KAREN E. SCHREIER, District Judge.
The United States of America commenced this action to reduce to judgment federal income tax assessments made against Colleen M. Harvey, to establish that the other named defendants are alter egos or nominees of Harvey, and to foreclose the resulting tax lien. Harvey moves to dismiss on behalf of all defendants. The United States resists the motion, and moves to strike Harvey's pleadings as they relate to all the named defendants except Harvey. For the reasons below, the court grants the United States's motion to strike, and denies Harvey's motion to dismiss.
The facts, according to the complaint (Docket 1), are as follows:
Harvey resides in Mitchell, South Dakota. Harvey and her late husband, Delmer Harvey, established the Pure Freedom Foundation. Harvey is the sole certificate holder of the Pure Freedom Foundation. Harvey is also a co-trustee of the Harvey Special Trust and the Harvey Family Living Trust.
The Harvey Special Trust acquired the property described in the complaint in April 2000. In June 2000, the Harveys began construction of a home on the property. In December 2002, the Harvey Special Trust conveyed the property and home to the Pure Freedom Foundation for twenty dollars. Harvey has used the property as her principal residence at all times, operates a business out of the house, pays the utilities and expenses related to the property, uses Pure Freedom bank accounts for personal expenses, and has never paid rent to the Pure Freedom Foundation.
Harvey did not file federal income tax returns for the tax years 1997 through 2005, inclusive. In 2007 and 2008, Harvey was given timely notice of the assessments against her. As of March 31, 2013, Harvey owes $1, 895, 161.07 in taxes and statutory additions. Notices of federal tax liens were filed in February 2008 and February 2009. The federal tax liens are the only encumbrances on the property, which has a fair market value of $218, 000.
I. Representation of Parties
The United States moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)(ii), to strike the motion to dismiss insofar as it is filed on behalf of the Pure Freedom Foundation, the Harvey Special Trust, and the Harvey Family Living Trust because Harvey, a nonlawyer, cannot represent the trusts and the foundation in federal court. Harvey argues that she was served with process as the trustee of the Harvey Special Trust and the Harvey Family Living Trust, so she should be able to respond on their behalf. Harvey also moves to dismiss the complaint in her position as manager of Pure Freedom Foundation.
Harvey's argument misses the point. Harvey is able to represent herself before this court. But having been served with the summons and complaint as the trustee of Harvey Special Trust U/D/T and the Harvey Family Living Trust does not confer upon her the ability to represent another entity, such as a trust or foundation, in court. Knoefler v. United Bank of Bismarck, 20 F.3d 347, 348 (8th Cir. 1994) ("A nonlawyer, such as these purported trustee(s) pro se' has no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust, in a court of the United States."); see also Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202-03 (1993) (holding that artificial entities may appear in federal courts only through licensed attorneys). Because Harvey is not a licensed attorney, she is unable to appear on behalf of any of the three entity defendants in this case.
In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires that "[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney... or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented." Numerous courts have held that Rule 11 is not satisfied when a nonlawyer signs a pleading on behalf of an unrepresented party, as Harvey has done here. 5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1333 n.15 (3d ed. 1998). "The 1993 amendment to Rule 11 requires that [a]n unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly...." Id.
As a result, the court grants the United States's motion to strike the motion to dismiss insofar as it is filed on behalf of the Pure Freedom Foundation, the Harvey Special Trust, and the Harvey Family Living Trust. See United States v. Lylalele, Inc., 221 F.3d 1345 at *1 (8th Cir. 2000) (unpublished table opinion) (affirming the district court's decision to strike pleadings filed pro se on behalf of a corporation and a trust because those entities cannot appear in federal court without legal representation). The court will consider Harvey's motion to dismiss as filed on her behalf alone. The court will not recognize further submissions in this matter on ...