Carter v. Jackson

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JEFFREY CARTER, Case No. 1:23-cv-01775-KES-SAB Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT v. CLARIFICATION AND ORDERING DEFENDANT TO FILE A NOTICE THAT WILLARD L. JACKSON, et al., COMPLIES WITH THE COURT’S ORDER Defendants. (ECF No. 41, 44) TEN-DAY DEADLINE

On May 23, 2024, the Court ordered Defendant Vicent Petrescu to file a notice of clarification. (ECF No. 41 at 10-11.) The Court specifically ordered that the filing be entitled “Notice of Clarification” and must inform the Court (1) whether Mr. Petrescu has procured counsel in this action; (2) whether the document filed on February 12, 2024 was intended to be filed with attachments as required by Section II (ECF No. 7 at 2); and (3) if the February 12, 2024 filing was intended to be a motion for an extension of time to file an amended answer. (Id.) On May 31, 2024, Defendant Petrescu filed a document entitled “Notice of Clarification.” (ECF No. 44.) The first page of the document states: Defendant Petrescu, pro se, files the following Notice of Clarification as Ordered (ECF No. 41). Petrescu is also CEO of [Defendant] TruCrowd and under Answers and Defenses will mention both Petrescu and TruCrowd. It is not Petrescu’s intent to represent TruCrowd, however, at this point neither Petrescu nor TruCrowd are represented by legal counsel. (Id. at 1.) Defendant Petrescu then appears to attach an amended answer with eighty-six pages of exhibits. (See id at 2-95.) In the same motion ordering Defendant Petrescu to file a particular document containing a specific title and specific contents, the Court admonished the parties that: The Court expects that counsel and pro se parties will be familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court’s Local Rules, and previous orders by the Court, and will cite to them in filings. Failure to follow these guidelines, as well as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules will result in the striking of future filings and other applicable sanctions. (ECF No. 41 at 9 (emphasis added).) Defendant Petrescu’s May 31, 2024 filing fails to comply with the Court’s May 23, 2024 order. Instead of complying with the Court order, Defendant appears to attempt to file an amended answer in contravention with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. The Court shall therefore strike the May 31, 2024 filing and order Defendant Petrescu to file a renewed notice of clarification that complies with the Court’s May 23, 2024 order and additional requirements detailed herein. In the interests of judicial economy and as a limited courtesy to the pro se Defendant, the Court shall also briefly address two rules. 1. Local Rule 183(a) “A corporation or other entity may appear only by an attorney.” L.R. 183(a); see also D– Beam Ltd. P'ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is a long-standing rule that corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney”) (quotations and citation omitted); Caveman Foods, LLC v. jAnn Payne's Caveman Foods, LLC, No. CV 2:12-1112 WBS DAD, 2015 WL 6736801, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2015) (“While individuals may appear in propria persona, corporations and other entities may appear only through an attorney; an unrepresented entity cannot file any pleadings, make or oppose any motions, or present any evidence to contest liability.”). There is no indication in the record that Defendant Petrescu is a licensed attorney. A non-lawyer may only appear in this Court in propria persona on his own behalf and corporations may appear only by attorney. L.R. 183(a). The Court’s May 23, 2024 order requested specific information pertaining to Defendant Petrescu, given the fact he filed the February 12, 2024 document solely in his capacity as an individual defendant in this action. Future filings by a non- lawyer acting on behalf of another, including a corporation, will be disregarded. 2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 The Court notes Defendant Petrescu’s notice (ECF No. 44) appears to be an attempt to amend his answer filed on February 12, 2024 (ECF No. 7). Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course no later than 21 days after service. “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit has directed district courts to consider the presence of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility, “with all inferences in favor of granting the motion [to amend].” Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999); Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973). If Defendant intends to amend his answer, he must file a separate stipulation or motion for leave to amend his answer that complies with Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules (see, e.g., L.R. 143, 230), and, if opposed, this Court’s meet and confer requirements detailed in the Standing Order (ECF No. 14 at 2-3). Defendant is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an amended answer complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended answer be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Further, Local Rule 137(c) requires that the proposed amended pleading be filed as an exhibit to the motion requesting leave to amend. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant Petrescu’s Notice of Clarification filed on May 31, 2024 (ECF No. 44) is STRICKEN; and 2. Within ten (10) days of entry of this order, Defendant Vicent Petrescu is ordered to file a document entitled “Notice of Clarification” that informs the Court: (a) Whether he has procured counsel in this action; (b) Whether the document filed on February 12, 2024 was intended to be filed with attachments as required by Section II (ECF No. 7 at 2); (c) If the February 12, 2024 filing was intended to be a motion for an extension of time to file an amended answer; and (d) A statement regarding whether Defendant Petrescu intends to file a stipulation or motion to amend his answer. Alternatively, Defendant may concurrently file a separate stipulation or motion for leave to amend his answer. IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. ee 1g | Dated: _June 4, 2024 _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE