(PS)At Home Electric v. The Hartford ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AT HOME ELECTRIC and HEATH V. No. 2:21-cv-01892 TLN AC PS FULKERSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 THE HARTFORD, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On October 12, 2021, defendant removed this case from state court to federal court on 19 grounds of diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs are proceeding in pro se. This case was 20 accordingly referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). The complaint 21 identifies two plaintiffs, a “California Incorporated business” (At Home Electric) and individual 22 Heath V. Fulkerson. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. The dispute centers on breach of a business owner’s 23 insurance policy. Id. It is unclear whether the policy was issued to the corporate entity or to 24 plaintiff Fulkerson, or both. 25 Plaintiff Fulkerson is attempting to represent the corporate entity At Home Electric in a 26 pro se capacity. A corporation must be represented by counsel. Reading Int’l, Inc. v. Malulani 27 Grp., Ltd., 814 F.3d 1046, 1053 (9th Cir. 2016). This case cannot go forward unless At Home 28 Electric is represented by counsel or is dropped from the case. However, if Mr. Fulkerson 1 | chooses to drop At Home Electric from the case rather than find counsel to represent it, he must 2 || be sure that he has standing as an individual to sue The Hartford, and that At Home Electronic is 3 | not a necessary party to the case.! To have standing in a breach of contract case, Mr. Fulkerson 4 || must have been a party to the contract or an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract. 5 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall obtain counsel for 6 || At Home Electric by November 22, 2021 or drop At Home Electric from this case by that date. 7 | If plaintiff fails to respond by November 22, 2021, the court will recommend dismissal of his case 8 | without prejudice for lack of prosecution. 9 || DATED: October 19, 2021 Chttten—Clare 10 ALLISON CLAIRE 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 | —___ ' “Consistent with this checks and balances principle, a private party can bring a “case” only if it 25 | has standing—a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged 26 || conduct, and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Gordon, 819 F.3d 1179, 1187 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted). 27 || 7 “[A]s a matter of general contract law, both an intended third party beneficiary and a party to the contract may sue for breach.” In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 162 F. Supp. 3d 953, 28 | 1010 (N_D. Cal. 2016).