Sanchez Incorporated v. City of Claremont, California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by a corporate plaintiff that appeared without counsel. The court ordered the plaintiff to obtain counsel by a specific date and denied the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order directing plaintiff to obtain counsel“The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to obtain counsel on or before February 5, 2021.” | agree with court The order correctly applies the well-established rule that corporations cannot appear pro se in federal court. The court cites the relevant local rule and binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent to support the directive. The deadline provided is reasonable and the threat of dismissal with prejudice is a standard enforcement mechanism for this rule. |
Denial of motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis“The motion is thus DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court denied the motion because the plaintiff, a corporation, lacked counsel. While the order does not explicitly state that a corporation cannot file an IFP motion pro se, it is a logical and legally sound consequence of the rule that corporations must be represented by counsel. Denying it without prejudice allows the plaintiff to refile the motion once counsel is retained, which is procedurally appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the procedural defect. It correctly identifies that a corporation cannot appear pro se, cites the controlling local rule and binding federal precedent, and issues a clear order with a deadline. The denial of the IFP motion is a logical corollary to the lack of counsel. The reasoning is complete for the issues presented.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SANCHEZ INCORPORATED, Case No. 21-cv-0045-BAS-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (1) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF CORPORATION TO OBTAIN 14 CITY OF CLAIREMONT, COUNSEL; and 15 Defendant. (2) DENYING MOTION FOR 16 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 17 FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2) 18 19 20 21 On January 11, 2021, Plaintiff Sanchez Incorporated filed the present action without 22 appointing counsel and moved for a leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) 23 Parties generally may plead and conduct their own cases personally. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. 24 However, “[o]nly natural persons representing their individual interests in propria persona 25 may appear in court without representation by an attorney.” Civ. L.R. 83.3(j). “All other 26 parties, including corporations, partnerships and other legal entities, may appear in court 27 only through an attorney permitted to practice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3.” Civ. 28 L.R. 83.3(j); see also Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993) (“It has 1 || been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the 2 || federal courts only through licensed counsel... . [T]hat rule applies equally to all artificial 3 |lentities.”); United States v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th 4 1993) (affirming district court’s entry of default judgment against the corporation 5 || when the corporation failed to retain counsel for the duration of the litigation and attempted 6 ||to proceed through its unlicensed president and sole shareholder); Greenspan v. Admin. 7 || Office of the United States Courts, No. 14cv2396 JTM, 2014 WL 6847460, at *6 (N.D. 8 Dec. 4, 2014) (dismissing corporate plaintiffs for failure to obtain legal 9 representation). 10 Here, Sanchez Incorporated is not a natural person and must appear in court only 11 |/through an attorney who is allowed to practice in this district. The Court ORDERS 12 || Plaintiff to obtain counsel on or before February 5, 2021. If Plaintiff does not obtain 13 || counsel by that date, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice. See Greenspan, No. 14 |}2014 WL 6847460, at *6. 15 Because Plaintiff corporation lacks counsel, the Court will not consider its motion 16 || for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) The motion is thus DENIED without 17 || prejudice. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ) 20 DATED: January 12, 2021 ( yi A A (Hiphan 6 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _9.