Moreno v. Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA G. MORENO, et al. Case No. 1:12-cv-00556-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PROPOSED SUBSTITUTION OF 13 v. ATTORNEY 14 CASTLEROCK FARMING AND (Doc. 137) TRANSPORT, INC., et al 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On April 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Defendants Castlerock 19 Farming and Transport, Inc., J.L. Padilla & Sons Labor Service, Inc., Albert L. Good, and Melba 20 Nunez Contracting. (Doc. 1). According to the operative complaint and other pleadings, 21 Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting (form unknown) is a business entity and farm labor 22 contractor. (Docs. 45, 86-1). Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting owned, controlled, or operated 23 a business or establishment that employed class members in this case. (Doc. 45). 24 Pending before the Court is the application of Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting for 25 substitution of attorney. (Doc. 137). Although Defendant purports to substitute “Itself (In pro 26 per)” in the place and stead of its current law firm (Raimondo Miller ALC), an entity may appear 27 only by an attorney. See Local Rule 183(a). Unlicensed layerpersons, including the owners of 28 1 || not represent their entities “pro se.” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit IT Men’s Advisory 2 || Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two 3 centuries...that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed 4 || counsel....[T]hat rule applies equally to all artificial entities.”); United States v. High Country 5 || Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (same); In re Bigelow, 179 F.3d 1164, 6 || 1165 (9th Cir. 1999) (same). 7 Here, it appears Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting’s request, if granted, would leave it 8 || without counsel and in violation of Local Rule 183(a). 9 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting’s 10 || application for substitution of attorney (Doc. 137) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 11 ll Tr IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 11, 2023 | bo 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28