J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Martinez

Filing 18

ORDER CONSTRUING DEFENDANT'S LETTER AS AN ANSWER AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A RESPONSE AND DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO UPDATE HIS ADDRESS WITH THE COURT signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/29/2015. (Filing Deadline set for 7/10/2015 for Plaintiff to file a Response and for Defendant to submit his current mailing address). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MARTIN CARRILLO MARTINEZ, aka
)
MARTIN MARTINEZ CARRILLO, d/b/a LA
)
NAYARITA RESTAURANT,
)
)
Defendants.
)
J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Case No.: 1:14-cv-1578-KJM-BAM
ORDER CONSTRUING DEFENDANT’S
LETTER AS AN ANSWER AND MOTION TO
SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND ORDERING
PLAINTIFF TO FILE A RESPONSE
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO
UPDATE HIS ADDRESS WITH THE COURT
(Docs. 13, 17)

18
19
On October 8, 2014, J&J Sports Production, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint alleging that
20
Defendant Martin Carrillo (“Defendant”) unlawfully intercepted and exhibited the closed-circuit
21
program “Timothy Bradley v. Juan Manuel Marquez WBO Welterweight Championship Fight
22
Program” at his commercial establishment, La Nayarita Restaurant (“La Nayarita”), located at 702 L
23
Street, in Sanger, California. The Summons and Complaint were served on Defendant by personal
24
service on February 3, 2015. (Doc. 9). Defendant did not answer the complaint, and the Clerk of the
25
Court entered default against Defendant on February 25, 2015. (Doc. 13).
26
On March 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment requesting that the Court
27
enter a judgment against Plaintiff for damages in the amount of $25,600.00. (Doc. 14-5). On June 10,
28
1

1

2015, Mr. Gene Pico mailed a letter to the Court on behalf of Defendant stating that Defendant, whose

2

primary language is Spanish, was unable to respond to the Complaint because he is unfamiliar with the

3

legal system. Mr. Pico explained that Defendant no longer owns or operates La Nayarita Restaurant,

4

and therefore Defendant had no knowledge of the interception and broadcast of the Bradley v.

5

Marquez fight at La Nayarita Restaurant on October 12, 2013. (Doc. 17).

6

The Court construes this document as a motion by Defendant, appearing pro se, to set aside the

7

Clerk’s entry of default and answer to the Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be allowed an

8

opportunity to respond to Defendant’s letter. See Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington Rests.

9

Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion is due on

10

or before July 10, 2015.

11

Defendant Martin Carrillo is FURTHER advised that although he has the right to appear on his

12

own behalf in this action, Mr. Pico has no authority to appear as an attorney for Defendant here. Mr.

13

Pico may not file papers or represent defendant. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876

14

(9th Cir. 1997)(a non-attorney proceeding pro se may bring his own claims to court, but may not

15

represent others). Further, while the Court acknowledges the difficulties Defendant’s English-language

16

limitations may pose for him in this action, generally the Court is not authorized to appoint interpreters

17

for litigants in civil cases and pro se civil litigants have no entitlement to an interpreter or translator.

18

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Loyola v. Potter, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36179, 2009 WL 1033398, at *2 (N.D.

19

Cal. Apr. 16, 2009) (“The court is not authorized to appoint interpreters for litigants in civil cases, and,

20

moreover, has no funds to pay for such a program.”). Under these circumstances, Defendant is advised

21

to retain counsel, however, if Defendant wishes to proceed pro se, he has an obligation under federal

22

and local rules to prosecute this case diligently, despite appearing in pro per. See King v. Atiyeh, 814

23

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern

24

other litigants.”)

25

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

26

1.

27

Defendant’s letter received on June 22, 2015 is CONSTRUED as an ANSWER and
MOTION to Set Aside the Clerk’s Entry of Default;

28
2

1

2.

or before July 10, 2015;

2
3

Plaintiff’s opposition to the Motion to Set Aside the Clerk’s Entry of Default is due on

3.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve a copy of this ORDER and its response to the Motion to Set

4

Aside the Clerk’s Entry of Default on Defendant Martin Carrillo Martinez at 14446

5

Lyle Street Sylmar, CA 91342 and Mr. Gene Pico at 420 Greenwood Avenue Sanger,

6

CA 93657;

7

4.

Defendant Martin Carrillo Martinez is advised that Mr. Pico may not represent him in

8

this case and may not file papers on his behalf. Defendant will be responsible for

9

providing his own interpreter;

10

5.

Defendant Martin Carrillo Martinez is DIRECTED to submit his current mailing
address to the Court no later than Friday, July 10, 2015.

11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

June 29, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3