Excedis Corporation vs Edward Bollmann, et al

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING ECF No. 11 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Adam P. McMillen withdrawn from the case on behalf of Plaintiff Excedis Corporation. Plaintiff Excedis Corporation shall file a substitution of counsel on or before Thursday, Octobe r 20, 2016. The failure to find replacement counsel will likely result in a dismissal of the Excedis action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order and all documents filed until Plaintiff obtains counsel shall be served on Excedis Cor poration, via regular mail at the following address: Excedis Corporation 4950 Wedekind Road, Suite 2 Sparks, Nevada 89703-4290 Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 9/20/2016. (Order mailed to Excedis to specified address on 9/20/2016.)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
EXCEDIS CORPORATION, a Nevada
limited liability company,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
EDWARD BOLLMAN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

3:16-cv-00514-HDM-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
September 20, 2016

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

KATIE LYNN OGDEN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is the motion of Adam McMillen, Esq., and Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck, LLP, law firm to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Excedis Corporation (ECF No. 11).
Accompanying counsel's motion is a Declaration of Counsel which indicates Plaintiff Excedis
Corporation has terminated its relationship with the Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, law
firm. Good cause appearing, therefore, counsel's motion (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED.
Although 28 U.S.C. § 1654 allows “parties” to “plead and conduct their own cases
personally,” the statute has not been interpreted to allow corporate entities to do so. “Corporations
and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.” In re America W.
Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (citations omitted). This rule “prohibits
pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.” Simon v.
Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008); see also C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United
States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (trustee may not appear pro se because he is not the person
who by substantive law has the right sought to be enforced).
///
///

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:16-cv-00514-HDM-WGC
Date: September 20, 2016
Page Two

As Judge Hicks noted in HDR Insurance Managers, LLC v. Summit Insurance Services, Inc.,
No. 2:09-cv-0380-LRH-GWF (D. Nv. 2011),
It is well recognized that a corporation may only appear in federal
court through licensed counsel. See e.g., Rowland v. California Mens
Colony, Unit II Mens’Advisotry Council, 506 U.S. 194, 200-201
(1983); In re Highley, 459 F.3d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Excedis Corporation shall file a substitution
of counsel within thirty (30) days of this order, i.e., on or before Thursday, October 20, 2016. The
failure to find replacement counsel will likely result in a dismissal of the Excedis action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order and all documents filed until
Plaintiff obtains counsel shall be served on Excedis Corporation, via regular mail at the following
address:
Excedis Corporation
4950 Wedekind Road, Suite 2
Sparks, Nevada 89703-4290
IT IS SO ORDERED.

LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk