Nasser et al v. Julius Samann LTD et al

Filing 135

ORDER DISMISSING SERIOUS SCENTS AS A NAMED PLAINTIFF. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 6/18/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(sjm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Case No.: 17-cv-863-BTM-MDD
IBRAHIM NASSER, an individual;
and SERIOUS SCENTS,

13
14

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER DISMISSING SERIOUS
SCENTS AS A NAMED PLAINTIFF
[ECF No. 97, 110, 114]

15
16
17
18

JULIUS SAMANN LTD; CAR
FRESHNER CO; ENERGIZER
BRANDS II LLC; AMERICAN
COVERS INC.; and DOES 1-100

19
20

Defendants.

21
22

The Court ordered Plaintiffs Ibrahim Nasser, an individual, and Serious

23

Scents, a corporation, to show cause as to why Serious Scents should not be

24

dismissed as a Plaintiff. (ECF No. 97). Plaintiff Nasser responded, asserting

25

that the suit concerns conduct that occurred prior to Serious Scent’s dissolution

26

and thus Serious Scents should remain a named Plaintiff. (ECF No. 110).

27

Nasser also contends that because Serious Scents is unable to afford an

28

attorney due to the “costly onslaught of . . . litigation” concerning the same
1
17-cv-863-BTM-MDD

1

parties and issues, this too weighs against dismissing Serious Scents as a

2

Plaintiff. (ECF No. 110 ¶¶ 6, 9).

3

Notwithstanding these arguments, and as Car-Freshner notes in its briefing

4

on the issue, Plaintiff Nasser failed to address the Court’s concerns about

5

Serious Scent’s appearing pro se as a corporation. (ECF No. 97 (ordering

6

Nasser to “show cause … why Serious Scents should not be dismissed because

7

it is not represented by an attorney….”); ECF No. 114 at 4). Corporations,

8

whether dissolved or not, cannot appear pro se. See Rowland v. California Men’s

9

Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of

10

two centuries … that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through

11

licensed counsel.”); D-Bean Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d

12

972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is a longstanding rule that corporations and other

13

unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”) (internal

14

quotations and alterations omitted); Chanel, Inc. v. Pishon Trading, Inc., No. 11-

15

cv-10281-MWF-CWX, 2013 WL 12123991, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013)

16

(quoting Zen Corp. v. New W. Bus. Dev., No. 03-cv-8837ABC-CTX, 2004 WL

17

1055279, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2004) (“Although the Ninth Circuit has not

18

addressed the issue of whether a dissolved corporation may be represented by

19

one of its former directors and shareholders appearing pro se, courts in other

20

circuits have concluded that such representation is not appropriate.”). Because

21

Serious Scents, a corporation, cannot proceed pro se, Serious Scents is

22

dismissed as a Plaintiff on this ground. This dismissal is without prejudice.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 18, 2019

25
26
27
28
2
17-cv-863-BTM-MDD

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
17-cv-863-BTM-MDD