Think Computer Foundation et al v. Administrative Office of the United States Courts et al

Filing 22

ORDER CORRECTING 19 Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/13/2014. The prior Order contained a typographical error in the calculation of the date on which Plaintiffs' response to the Order was due. This Order corrects that typographical error, and sets Plaintiffs' response to be due by July 13, 2014. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

THINK COMPUTER FOUNDATION, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 14-cv-02396-BLF
CORRECTED ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AS TO WHY THE COMPLAINT
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

v.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES COURTS, et al.,

[Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 19]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14
15
16

TO PLAINTIFFS THINK COMPUTER FOUNDATION AND THINK COMPUTER
CORPORATION:
YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 3-9(B) AND FEDERAL COURT

17

PRECEDENT FOR FAILURE TO BE REPRESENTED BY LICENSED COUNSEL ON THE

18

GROUNDS SET FORTH BELOW.

19

On May 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the above-captioned action. (ECF 1) On that

20

same date, Plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Court seeking permission for electronic case filing. (ECF

21

3) Both documents list “Aaron Greenspan” as appearing pro se on behalf of Think Computer

22

Corporation and Think Computer Foundation.

23

The rules of this Court make clear that a corporation or other entity may appear in Court only

24

through an attorney licensed to practice law before the Court. Civil L-R 3-9(b) (“A corporation,

25

unincorporated association, partnership, or other such entity may appear only through a member of the

26

bar of this Court.”). The United States Supreme Court has held that such rules are constitutional, see

27

Rowland v. Calif. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993), and the Ninth Circuit has upheld district court

28

1
2
3

orders entering default judgment against a Plaintiff entity that refused to retain counsel for the duration
of litigation. United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (1993).
It has been brought to the Court’s attention that Mr. Greenspan is not an attorney licensed to

4

practice law in the state of California, (ECF 11) and as such, under the prevailing law and rules of this

5

Court, cannot represent an entity in action before this Court.

6
7
8

THE COURT hereby issues an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why Plaintiffs’ claims should not
be dismissed for failure to be represented by counsel, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-9(b) and
prevailing case law.

9
This Order hereby corrects and supersedes the Court’s June 11, 2014 Order to Show Cause.

10
The previously issued order contained a typographical error regarding the due date for Plaintiffs’

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

response to this Order. The deadline for responding to the Order to Show Cause will now be July 13,
2014, thirty (30) days from the issuance of this corrected Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a response, the
case shall be dismissed. The Court shall not hold a hearing on this Order unless otherwise stated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 13, 2014
______________________________________
HON. BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2