Medlink Health Solutions, LLC v. Maddox Defense, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court considered the status of the case after plaintiff's counsel was relieved and the plaintiff failed to retain new counsel within the 30-day stay. The court dismissed the case in its entirety without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the case in its entirety without prejudice for failure to prosecute.“Because Plaintiff Medlink Health Solutions, LLC, a corporate entity, is not represented, and has had ample opportunity to retain counsel, the Court DISMISSES this case, in its entirety, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The dismissal is supported by the record. The court granted a 30-day stay for the plaintiff to retain counsel, explicitly warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal under Rule 41(b) and inherent authority, and the plaintiff failed to file a notice of appearance by the deadline. The court correctly noted that a corporation must appear through licensed counsel. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the well-settled rule that corporations must be represented by licensed counsel. It recites the procedural history showing the plaintiff was given notice, consented to the withdrawal of counsel, was given a specific deadline to retain new counsel, and was warned of the consequences of inaction. The dismissal without prejudice is a standard and appropriate remedy for failure to prosecute under these circumstances.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MEDLINK HEALTH SOLUTIONS, Case No.: 22-cv-1306-BJC-DEB LLC, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR Plaintiff, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 13 v. 14 MADDOX DEFENSE INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 It is well settled that “[a] corporation may appear in federal court only through 19 licensed counsel.” United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 20 1993) (citing Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, ––––, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721 21 (1993). Because Plaintiff Medlink Health Solutions, LLC, a corporate entity, is not 22 represented, and has had ample opportunity to retain counsel, the Court DISMISSES this 23 case, in its entirety, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 24 On April 15, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel Jacob Gillick of Gillick Legal, APC 25 (“Gillick”) filed an unopposed ex parte motion to be relieved as counsel. ECF No. 135. 26 The Court conducted a hearing on the motion to be relieved on May 8, 2025. ECF No. 27 141. After the hearing, the Court issued an Order instructing Gillick to contact his client 28 and inform it of the pending motion to be relieved. ECF No. 142. Plaintiff was instructed 1 ||to file a response to the Motion, indicating whether it consented to, or opposed, Gillick’s 2 || withdrawal. Jd. On May 18, 2025, Jerome Ramsaran, on behalf of Plaintiff, filed a 3 declaration stating that he “consent[ed] to Mr. Gillick and Gillick Legal, APC being 4 || relieved as counsel of record in this matter.” ECF No. 144 at 2. Mr. Ramsaran also stated 5 || that he understood that “Medlink will need to retain new counsel” and he understood that 6 || “as a corporate party, Medlink must appear in this action through licensed legal counsel.” 7 8 On June 6, 2025, the Court granted Gillick’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel and 9 || stayed the matter for 30 days to allow Plaintiff time to retain new counsel. ECF No. 148 10 7. In the June 6 Order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a notice of appearance for its 11 counsel on or before July 7, 2025. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that, if it did not file 12 notice of appearance by that date, “the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs claims for failure to 13 || prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) which permits the involuntary 14 || dismissal of a case ‘[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a 15 || court order.’” Jd. at 8. The Court warned Plaintiff that “[t]he district court has the inherent 16 || power to dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution.” Jd. The Court required Gillick 17 serve the June 6 Order on Plaintiff and file a proof of service on the docket no later than 18 9, 2025. ECF No. 148 at 8. Gillick complied and filed the proof of service on the 19 || docket on June 8, 2025. 20 The time for Plaintiff to retain new counsel has come and gone. Accordingly, the 21 || Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: July 14, 2025 24 25 6 Dar C4 fe C2 ef Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 28