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

Filing 33

ORDER re 24 Response to Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/17/2014. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2014)

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
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE
TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On June 13, 2014, this Court ordered Plaintiffs Think Computer Foundation and Think

14

Computer Corporation to show cause as to why their claims should not be dismissed for failure to

15

be represented by licensed counsel. (ECF 22 at 1) The documents that had been filed with the

16

Court listed an “Aaron Greenspan” as appearing pro se on behalf of Think Computer Corporation

17

and Think Computer Foundation. (See, e.g., ECF 1, 3) It was brought to the Court’s attention that

18

Mr. Greenspan was not an attorney licensed to practice law in California or any other state, and as

19

such could not represent corporate or other entities before this Court.

20

On June 16, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Response to the Order to Show Cause (ECF 24) and

21

filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF 23) The FAC adds Aaron Greenspan as a named

22

Plaintiff to the action. (See ECF 23 at 1)

23

The Court’s Order to Show Cause asked that Plaintiffs provide a reason why this action

24

should not be dismissed in its entirety for failure to be represented by counsel. The inclusion of

25

Mr. Greenspan as a Plaintiff is sufficient to provide this reason. Though corporations may appear

26

in court only through licensed counsel, see, e.g., Rowland v. Calif. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194

27

(1993), an individual may represent himself in litigation before a federal court. See 28 U.S.C. §

28

1654. Thus, Mr. Greenspan may act as counsel for himself in this litigation.

1

Plaintiffs’ Response to the Order to Show Cause includes a lengthy argument as to why

2

corporate plaintiffs should not be required to be represented by licensed counsel when appearing

3

in court. (See, e.g., ECF 24 at 9) This argument, however, is irrelevant for purposes of the Order to

4

Show Cause. The decision to join Mr. Greenspan as Plaintiff means that he has the right to

5

represent himself in this litigation, and the Court therefore declines to dismiss the entire action

6

outright. The Court leaves for another day the determination as to whether the corporate Plaintiffs

7

may appear without counsel properly licensed to practice law before this Court.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 17, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

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