Taj Transport Inc. v. Singh ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TAJ TRANSPORT INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00085-JLT-EPG 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER VACATING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL, AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW 13 RASANJIT SINGH, et al., CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 14 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 23, 27) 15 16 17 On September 8, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the motion of Attorney Ashley 18 DeGuzman to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs, also addressing the upcoming scheduling 19 conference and Plaintiffs’ future litigation of this case. (ECF Nos. 23, 27). Attorney DeGuzman appeared as did defense counsel, Attorney Gregory Blueford; however, no Plaintiff, or attorney 20 on behalf of any Plaintiff, appeared. 21 For the reasons stated on the record, the Court will grant Attorney DeGuzman’s motion to 22 withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs. 23 Additionally, as it is uncertain whether Plaintiffs intend to litigate this case further, the 24 Court will vacate the scheduling conference scheduled for September 18, 2023, and require 25 Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 18). 26 Notably, despite directing Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by no later than 27 August 31, 2023, and advising them that failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action, 28 1 Plaintiffs have filed nothing. (ECF No. 18). Similarly, despite Plaintiffs’ purported intent to 2 obtain new counsel in light of Attorney DeGuzman’s request to withdraw, no attorney has entered 3 an appearance for Plaintiffs, and Plaintiff Taj Transport Inc., a corporation, cannot be represented 4 by a corporation if this case were to proceed without counsel. See Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (“While a non-attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, 5 [h]e has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.”) (internal citation and 6 quotation marks omitted). Moreover, neither Plaintiff nor a representative of Plaintiff appeared at 7 the hearing, despite Attorney DeGuzman’s representation that she advised them of the motion and 8 hearing. (See ECF No. 25). All of these circumstances indicate that Plaintiffs do not intend to 9 prosecute this case or comply with the Court’s orders and thus the Court will require Plaintiffs to 10 show cause why the action should not be dismissed. 11 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 12 1. The scheduling conference scheduled for September 18, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. is vacated. 13 (ECF No. 18). 14 2. The motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 23) is granted, and the Clerk of Court is 15 directed to terminate Attorney Ashley DeGuzman as counsel of record for Plaintiffs and to 16 update Plaintiffs’ address and to send a copy of this order and all future orders to the 17 follow address: 18 a. Taj Transport Inc., 2715 Keats Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611. 19 b. Palwinder Gharu, 2715 Keats Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611. 20 3. By no later than October 9, 2023, Plaintiffs are directed to file a response to this show 21 cause order, explaining (1) why this case should not be dismissed; (2) whether they intend 22 to litigate this matter further; and (3) whether they intend to obtain counsel. 23 \\\ \\\ 24 \\\ 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 1 4. If Plaintiffs fail to file any response to this order, they are advised that this action may be 2 dismissed. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5] Dated: _ September 8, 2023 [see hey 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28