(PS) Rhuma v. State of Libya ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAHER RHUMA, et al., No. 2:20-cv-02366 JAM AC PS 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF LIBYA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se, and the matter is accordingly before the 18 undersigned for pretrial proceedings pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). By Order filed on 19 December 20, 2021, the defendant State of Libya was directed to show cause why the document 20 construed and filed as an answer (ECF No. 5) should not be stricken. ECF No. 18. Defendant 21 has not responded to the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) and the time to do so has expired. The 22 copy of the OSC mailed to defendant at the address provided with the purported answer, directed 23 to the individual associated with the purported answer, was returned to the court as undeliverable. 24 See Docket entry dated January 25, 2022. 25 For the reasons identified in the OSC, ECF No. 18, the purported answer will be stricken. 26 In sum, the following facts and circumstances demonstrate that the document was improperly 27 filed, and cast significant doubt its provenance: 28  The document is unsigned, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). ] e The document appears not to have been prepared and filed by counsel. A foreign 2 government, like any entity, may only appear in this court by and through licensed 3 counsel. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1987); 4 Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-202 5 (1993). 6 e Mail delivered to the address provided as a return address when the “answer” was mailed 7 has been twice returned to the court as undeliverable. Docket entries dated August 25, 8 2021 and January 25, 2022.! 9 e The document purports to concede liability on behalf of the national government of Libya, 10 agrees with plaintiffs about the amount and calculation of damages, and joins plaintiffs’ 11 request for Libyan assets held in the United States to be unfrozen in order to pay a 12 judgment, yet appears not to have been submitted by an official with authority to represent 13 the State of Libya in litigation under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 14 Defendant has now failed to appear at the initial scheduling conference and has failed to 15 || respond to the Order to Show Cause. By separate order, the court finds that service on the State 16 | of Libya has not been properly effected. 17 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and at ECF No. 18, the document construed and 18 || docketed as an Answer at ECF No. 5 is HEREBY STRICKEN as filed in violation of the Federal 19 | Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of this court. 20 | DATED: March 7, 2022 ~ 21 Chthwen— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 || | The return address provided when the document was mailed, ECF No. 5 at 14, is in a different city than the address to which service was made, id. at 4; see also ECF No. 4 at 2. The street 28 | addresses are identical.