Candelario v. Amerilist, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered a letter filed by an officer of the defendant corporation, which stated the company could not afford counsel and requested the letter be accepted as an answer. The court struck the letter sua sponte, ruling that a corporation must be represented by an attorney and the filing violated local rules regarding format and service.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Strike the letter and exhibits filed by Ravi Backerdan (ECF No. 4).“Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Mr. Backerdan’s letter and accompanying exhibits (ECF No. 4).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the well-established principle that corporations cannot represent themselves in federal court and must be represented by licensed attorneys. The court also correctly identified that the filing failed to comply with local rules regarding proof of service and formatting. Striking the document is a standard procedural remedy for such violations. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies that the defendant is a corporation and therefore cannot appear pro se. It cites the appropriate local rules and Ninth Circuit precedent supporting the requirement for attorney representation. It also correctly notes the failure to comply with local rules regarding service and formatting, providing an independent basis for striking the document. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAY CANDELARIO, individually and on Case No.: 3:21-cv-586-JLS (JLB) behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER SUA SPONTE STRIKING Plaintiff, 13 LETTER vs. 14 AMERILIST, INC., (ECF No. 4) 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is a letter from Ravi Backerdan and various exhibits 20 (“Letter,” ECF No. 4). Mr. Backerdan, who appears to be an officer of Defendant 21 Amerilist, Inc., states that “We cannot afford counsel at this time. Please accept this as our 22 answer to the complaint.” Letter at 1. For the reasons stated below, the Court declines to 23 construe the filing as Defendant’s answer and STRIKES the filing. 24 As an initial matter, pursuant to this District’s Local Rules: 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Only natural persons representing their individual interests in propia persona may appear in court without representation by an 2 attorney permitted to practice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3. 3 All other parties, including corporations, partnerships and other legal entities, may appear in court only through an attorney 4 permitted to practice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3. 5 6 S.D. Civ L.R. 83.3(j); see also In re Highley, 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972) (“A 7 corporation can appear in a court proceeding only through an attorney at law.”) (collecting 8 cases). Accordingly, to the extent the Letter purports to be from or on behalf of Defendant 9 Amerilist, Inc., the Court finds it is unable to accept the Letter. Mr. Backerdan cannot 10 represent Amerilist, Inc. unless he is an attorney at law, and “[Amerilist, Inc.] may not file 11 documents in this case unless and until [it is] represented by attorneys admitted to the bar 12 of this court.” Denso Corp. v. Domain Name (denso.com), No. C 14-01050 LB, 2014 WL 13 4681179, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014). 14 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)(1), courts may sua sponte consider 15 whether to strike from a pleading “an insufficient defense, or any redundant, immaterial, 16 impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Rule 12(f) is limited to striking from a pleading only 17 those specific matters which are provided for in the rule. Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi–Craft 18 Co., 618 F.3d 970, 974–75 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the Court declines to construe Mr. 19 Backerdan’s submission as a pleading because Defendant cannot appear in this Court 20 without an attorney at law. 21 A court may sua sponte strike a document filed in violation of the Court’s local 22 procedural rules. See Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 23 2010) (noting district court’s “power to strike items from the docket as a sanction for 24 litigation conduct”); Smith v. Frank, 923 F.3d 139. 142 (9th Cir. 1991) (“For violations of 25 the local rules, sanctions may be imposed including, in appropriate cases, striking the 26 offending pleading.”). The filing is missing a proof of service and is improperly formatted 27 in violation of this District’s local rules. See S.D. Civ. L.R. 5.1, 5.2. Furthermore, it is not 28 a filing made by any Party to this matter. 1 Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Mr. Backerdan’s letter and accompanying 2 ||exhibits (ECF No. 4). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: May 7, 2021 tt , 5 jen Janis L. Sammartino 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 oe