Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Media, LLC

Filing 30

ORDER STRIKING IMPROPER MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT by Judge Alsup striking 13 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; finding as moot 19 Motion for Discovery (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 11-03906 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

13

JUNIPER MEDIA, LLC,

14

ORDER STRIKING
IMPROPER MOTION
TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

Defendant.
/

15
16

On September 15, 2011, Charles T. Schaeffer filed a “pro se” motion to dismiss the

17

complaint on behalf of defendant Juniper Media, LLC (Dkt. No. 13). Mr. Schaeffer is the founder

18

of Juniper Media, but he does not claim to be an attorney (Schaeffer Decl. ¶ 1). Plaintiff timely

19

opposed the motion. No reply was filed. Plaintiff also moved to strike Mr. Schaeffer’s motion

20

“because it violates Civil L.R. 3-9(b), which prohibits a company from appearing before the

21

Court other than through a member of the bar of this Court” (Dkt. No. 16 at 1). No opposition to

22

plaintiff’s motion to strike was filed.

23

“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear

24

in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II

25

Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993). Civil Local Rule 3-9(b) codifies this law

26

as follows: “A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may

27

appear only through a member of the bar of this Court.” Accordingly, Mr. Schaeffer’s “pro se”

28

motion to dismiss on behalf of defendant Juniper Media, LLC was improper.

1

Plaintiff’s motion to strike the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The motion to dismiss is

2

STRICKEN. In light of these rulings, plaintiff’s motion for jurisdictional discovery is DENIED

3

AS MOOT.

4

management conference set for the same day will go forward as planned.

The motion hearing previously set for November 3, 2011, is VACATED. The case

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: October 24, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2