Pedraza et al v. Borg

Filing 18

ORDER Setting Further Case Management Conference. Further case management conference set for 5/5/2009, 1:30 PM. Joint case management statement due by 4/28/2009. Plaintiffs' lead counsel to appear in person. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 4/8/2009. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION MARTIN PEDRAZA, VALENTIN PEDRAZA, and FELIPE SALINAS, v. Plaintiffs, No. C08-04710 HRL ORDER SETTING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE *E-FILED 4/8/2009*

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

REUBEN BORG dba BORG REDWOOD FENCES, Defendant. / The court held a case management conference on April 7, 2009. At the conference, Julie Borg and Cele Gutierrez, who are not attorneys, purported to appear on behalf of defendant Borg Redwood Fences, which, they say, is a corporation. Borg Redwood Fences is advised that it may not appear pro se or through its corporate officers, but must retain counsel to represent it in this lawsuit. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) ("A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court"); see also Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) ("It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel"); In Re Highley, 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972) ("A corporation can appear in a court proceeding only through an attorney at law"). Borg Redwood Fences is further advised that it retains all of the obligations of a litigant, and its failure to obtain an

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

attorney may lead to an order striking its pleadings or entry of its default. A further case management conference will be held on May 5, 2009, 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2. The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint case management conference statement no later than April 28, 2009. Plaintiffs' lead counsel is directed to appear at the May 5, 2009 conference in person ­ or risk sanctions for the failure to do so.1 Civ. L.R. 16-10(a). SO ORDERED. Dated: April 8, 2009 HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The case management conference was continued twice at plaintiffs' request, with one 30-day continuance being made because plaintiffs said that they intended to amend their complaint. However, it was not until the evening before the conference that plaintiffs purported to file an amended pleading to add a new defendant. See Woodruff v. Mueller, No. C01-02307VRW, 2004 WL 724886 *5 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 24, 2004) (citing Moore v. Indiana, 999 F.2d 1125 (7th Cir. 1993) ("A plaintiff has a right to amend his pleading `once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.' FRCP 15(a). . . . But leave to amend must be obtained to add a new defendant, even before a responsive pleading has been served.'"). Moreover, plaintiffs' counsel failed to appear at the conference due to a reported calendaring error at their offices. Instead, they sent a substitute attorney, who had no apparent connection with, or knowledge of, this case.
1

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5:08-cv-4710 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Adam Wang [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] Adam Lee Pedersen [e-mail] Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. 5:08-cv-4710 Copy of this document mailed to: Attention: Cele Gutierrez Borg Redwood Fences 575 Boulder Court Pleasanton, CA 94566

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3