Moreno et al v. Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc. et al

Filing 138

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 137 Proposed Substitution of Attorney, signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 12/11/2023. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIA G. MORENO, et al.

12
13
14

Plaintiffs,
v.
CASTLEROCK FARMING AND
TRANSPORT, INC., et al

Case No. 1:12-cv-00556-JLT-CDB
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PROPOSED SUBSTITUTION OF
ATTORNEY
(Doc. 137)

15
Defendants.
16
17
18

On April 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Defendants Castlerock

19

Farming and Transport, Inc., J.L. Padilla & Sons Labor Service, Inc., Albert L. Good, and Melba

20

Nunez Contracting.

21

Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting (form unknown) is a business entity and farm labor

22

contractor. (Docs. 45, 86-1). Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting owned, controlled, or operated

23

a business or establishment that employed class members in this case. (Doc. 45).

(Doc. 1).

According to the operative complaint and other pleadings,

24

Pending before the Court is the application of Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting for

25

substitution of attorney. (Doc. 137). Although Defendant purports to substitute “Itself (In pro

26

per)” in the place and stead of its current law firm (Raimondo Miller ALC), an entity may appear

27

only by an attorney. See Local Rule 183(a). Unlicensed layerpersons, including the owners of

28

companies, officers of a corporation, partners of a partnership, and members of association may

1

not represent their entities “pro se.” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory

2

Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two

3

centuries…that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed

4

counsel….[T]hat rule applies equally to all artificial entities.”); United States v. High Country

5

Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (same); In re Bigelow, 179 F.3d 1164,

6

1165 (9th Cir. 1999) (same).

7
8
9

Here, it appears Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting’s request, if granted, would leave it
without counsel and in violation of Local Rule 183(a).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting’s

10

application for substitution of attorney (Doc. 137) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated:

December 11, 2023

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE