Beehive Stud Rockers LLC v. Knoebel Construction Incorporated

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMay 13, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-00243
StatusUnknown

This text of Beehive Stud Rockers LLC v. Knoebel Construction Incorporated (Beehive Stud Rockers LLC v. Knoebel Construction Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beehive Stud Rockers LLC v. Knoebel Construction Incorporated, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Beehive Stud Rockers LLC, No. CV-23-00243-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, ORDER

11 v.

12 Knoebel Construction Incorporated,

13 Defendant/Counterclaimant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff/Counterdefendant’s counsel’s motion to 16 withdraw. (Doc. 34). Such withdrawal would leave the Limited Liability Company “pro 17 se”. However, corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court 18 through an attorney. D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973- 19 74 (9th Cir. 2004). The reason that these entities cannot be represented by a pro-se litigant 20 is because a non-attorney’s privilege to appear on his own behalf is a privilege that is 21 personal to himself. Pope Equity Trust v. Stradley, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). A 22 pro-se litigant has no authority to appear on behalf of, or represent, others. Id. 23 The Court will not allow counsel to withdraw, but leave this case open on the docket 24 with an unrepresented entity. Therefore, Plaintiff/counterdefendant must obtain substitute 25 counsel, or the complaint and answer to the counterclaim will be stricken. Upon striking 26 the complaint, the case will be dismissed as to all of Plaintiff’s claims. Upon the striking 27 of the answer, counterclaimant can move for default on the counterclaim. 28 Therefore, 1 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to withdraw (Doc. 34) is denied for failing to || comply with Local Rule Civil 83.3 (it neither contains the consent of the client, nor was it served on the client). If the motion to withdraw is refiled, Plaintiff/counterdefendant has 4|| 30 days from the filing of the motion to obtain substitute counsel. If no substitute counsel 5 || is obtained, the complaint and answer to the counterclaim will be stricken. 6 Dated this 13th day of May, 2024. 7 8 '

10 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Beehive Stud Rockers LLC v. Knoebel Construction Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beehive-stud-rockers-llc-v-knoebel-construction-incorporated-azd-2024.