American Express National Bank and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. v. Welcome Trader’s, Rehman Trader’s, Sarib Rehman, and Mehlab Fatima

Opinion

1 2

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK, No. 2:24-cv-03320 WBS SCR 13 and AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., 14 a New York corporation, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 WELCOME TRADER’S, a California corporation; REHMAN TRADER’S, a 18 California corporation; SARIB REHMAN, an individual; and 19 MEHLAB FATIMA, an individual, 20 Defendants. 21 22 ----oo0oo---- 23 In their instant motion, plaintiffs move the court to 24 strike the answers of Defendants Rehman Trader’s and Welcome 25 Trader’s (the “corporate defendants”) and enter default against 26 those defendants. (Docket No. 30.) 27 This action has a serpentine procedural history that 28 has, in large part, resulted from defendants’ failure to timely 1 file documents and communicate with counsel. Relevant here, on 2 November 10, 2025, defendants’ then-counsel filed a motion to 3 withdraw as attorney on the grounds that defendants refused to 4 return his communications. (See generally Docket No. 19.) On 5 December 22, 2025, the court held oral argument on that motion 6 and continued the matter to January 20, 2026, to provide 7 defendants a final opportunity to appear and be heard. (See 8 Docket No. 23.) 9 During oral argument on January 20, 2026, at which the 10 individual defendants were present, the court repeatedly reminded 11 the parties that the corporate defendants must be represented by 12 counsel or they will not be permitted to appear or be heard. At 13 the conclusion of that hearing, the court granted defendants’ 14 then-counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney for all defendants 15 (see Docket No. 25); the corporate defendants have since been 16 unrepresented by counsel, and the individual defendants apppear 17 to be proceeding pro se. The instant motion followed on March 18 12, 2026. (Docket No. 30.) The individual defendants have 19 failed to file a timely opposition (or any opposition), and the 20 corporate defendants have still failed to retain counsel. 21 I. Entry of Default 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) provides that 23 “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is 24 sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure 25 is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the 26 party's default.” (emphasis added). Given the “longstanding 27 rule that corporations . . . must appear in court through an 28 1 attorney,” D-Beam Ltd. P'ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 2 F.3d 972, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation modified), the Ninth 3 Circuit has repeatedly found that “entry of default judgment 4 against a corporation based on its failure to retain counsel is 5 ‘perfectly appropriate.’” United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. 6 C3 Int'l, Inc., No. 24-5679, 2025 WL 3312122, at *2 (9th Cir. 7 Nov. 28, 2025) (quoting United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 8 3 F. 3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)). 9 Accordingly, entering default against the corporate 10 defendants is proper. See Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Super 99 11 Outlet, No. 03-cv-8882 MMM CWx, 2005 WL 8156274, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 12 Sept. 27, 2005) (entering default against corporation that failed 13 to retain counsel); Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Software Tech, No. 5:14- 14 cv-02140-RMW, 2015 WL 6956632, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) 15 (same). 16 II. Motion to Strike 17 As discussed above, the corporate defendants have 18 failed to oppose plaintiffs’ motion to strike because they have 19 failed to retain counsel through which they could do so. In 20 light of their non-opposition and the fact that “[w]hen a 21 corporation fails to retain counsel to represent it in an action, 22 its answer may be stricken,” Crandall v. Semillon Inc., No. 15- 23 cv-1257 GPC NLS, 2016 WL 4479397, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 24 2016), the court will grant plaintiffs’ motion to strike the 25 corporate defendants’ answer. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c) (“A 26 failure to file a timely opposition may also be construed by the 27 Court as a non-opposition to the motion.”). 28 ne nnn en ee on nn nnn en en nn nn nn nnn ne nn I IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to strike the answers of Defendants Rehman Trader’s and Welcome Trader’s and reguest for entry of default against those defendants (Docket No. 30) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; ° and the Clerk of Court is directed to enter the default of ° defendants Rehman Trader’s and Welcome Trader’s.! IT IS SO ORDERED. | pated: April 23, 2026 fd. be—~ 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 230, this motion is decided on the papers without oral argument. The scheduled April 27, 2026, 28 | hearing on the motion is hereby VACATED.