Maslic v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o.

Opinion

1 2 6 7 SASA MASLIC, et al., Case No. 21-cv-02556-BLF 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT EISENMANN 9 v. CORPORATION’S ANSWER SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN AND DEFAULT 10 ISM VUZEM D.O.O., et al., ENTERED AGAINST IT 11 Defendants. a 12

All counsel of record for Defendant Eisenmann Corporation have withdrawn from

v 14 || representation with leave of the Court. See Orders, ECF 103, 108. “The law is clear that a

15 || corporation can be represented only by a licensed attorney.” In re Bigelow, 179 F.3d 1164, 1165 Q 16 |} (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Defendant Eisenmann Corporation is ORDERED TO SHOW

= 17 || CAUSE, in writing and within 30 days, why its answer should not be stricken and default entered Z 18 || against it. 19 Defendant Eisenmann Corporation’s prior counsel, Frost Brown Todd LLC and Boies 20 || Schiller Flexner LLP, SHALL provide a copy of this order to Defendant Eisenmann Corporation 21 and shall file proof of service showing it did so. 23 24 || Dated: January 23, 2024

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 26 United States District Judge 27 28