Pacific Elements, LLC v. Interface Protein Technology, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER STRIKING Late-Filed 23 Objections to Findings and Recommendations filed by Interface Protein Technology, Inc.; Judgment Stands, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 02/11/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PACIFIC ELEMENTS, LLC,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01247-LJO-EPG
ORDER STRIKING LATE-FILED
OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

14
15

INTERFACE PROTEIN TECHNOLOGY,
INC.,

(ECF No. 23)

16
Defendant.
17
18
19

Plaintiff Pacific Elements, LLC filed this action on August 23, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On
October 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Interface

20
21

Protein Technology, Inc. (ECF No. 8.) On January 19, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued

22

Findings and Recommendations (“F&Rs”) recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted.

23

(ECF No. 20.) The F&Rs were served on Defendant with instructions that any objections must

24

be filed within fourteen days. No party filed objections within that timeframe. On February 9,

25

2017, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de

26
27
28

novo review of the case and entered an order adopting the F&Rs in full. (ECF No. 21.) On the
same day, Judgment was entered against Defendant in the amount of $120,479.90. (ECF. No.
1

1
2
3
4

22.)
On several occasions prior to entry of judgment, a corporate officer of Defendant,
Charles Han (“Han”), attempted to file responsive pleadings and oppositions in this case. (ECF
Nos. 9, 15, 16.) Defendant was warned that a corporation or other business entity may only

5
6

appear in federal court through counsel and was provided ample opportunity to obtain counsel.

7

(ECF No. 18; see also ECF No. 20 at 3 (citing Local Rule 183(a); Rowland v. Cal. Men’s

8

Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for

9

the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only

10

through licensed counsel.”)). Despite this, Defendant did not retain counsel. Accordingly, the

11
12
13
14
15
16

F&Rs recommended striking the various documents filed by Han, and the Court adopted that
recommendation. (ECF Nos. 20 & 21.)
On February 9, 2017, the same day the Court adopted the F&Rs in full and entered
Judgment, Han filed a document entitled “Objection to Magistrate Judge’s finding and
recommendations” in propria persona. (ECF. No. 23.) Not only does the filing provide no

17
18

excuse for its untimeliness, as with the other filings discussed above, Han’s objections cannot

19

be considered because a corporation may only appear in this Court through licensed counsel.

20

Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to STRIKE the objections from the record. As a

21

result, the record reflects no basis upon which the Court could or should reconsider its order

22
adopting the F&Rs. The Judgment stands.
23
24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

February 11, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3