Johnson v. RATI, LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 18-cv-01688-AGT 9 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT’S 10 v. ANSWER AND ENTERING DEFAULT 11 RATI, LLC, Defendant. 12 13 Defendant Rati LLC has stopped participating in this case, as demonstrated by the 14 company’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders requiring it to retain substitute counsel and to 15 show cause for failing to do so. See ECF Nos. 46, 50. Due to this noncompliance, the case is now 16 at a standstill; for as the Court previously noted, Rati LLC, a limited liability company, cannot 17 proceed pro se. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b). 18 When a corporate defendant fails to retain substitute counsel when ordered to do so, the 19 Court may strike the defendant’s answer and enter its default. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), 20 37(b)(2)(A) (district court may strike pleadings and enter default for failure to comply with pretrial 21 order); Emp. Painters’ Tr. v. Ethan Enters., Inc., 480 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court 22 did not abuse its discretion in entering default against corporate defendant “for failure to comply 23 with local rules requiring representation by counsel”). The Court takes these actions here. 24 Rati LLC’s answer, ECF No. 11, is stricken, and the Clerk of the Court is instructed to 25 enter default against the company. By October 2, 2020, the plaintiff, Scott Johnson, shall file a 26 motion for default judgment, which must address the Eitel factors. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 27 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). He must serve a copy of the motion on Rati LLC and file proof of 1 costs, he must submit evidence in support of such awards with his motion. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: September 9, 2020 4 ALEX G. TSE 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28