Medlink Health Solutions, LLC v. Maddox Defense, Inc.

Opinion

MEDLINK HEALTH SOLUTIONS, Case No.: 22-cv-1306-BJC-DEB LLC, ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR Plaintiff, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE v. MADDOX DEFENSE INC., et al., Defendants. It is well settled that “[a] corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel.” United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, ––––, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721 (1993). Because Plaintiff Medlink Health Solutions, LLC, a corporate entity, is not represented, and has had ample opportunity to retain counsel, the Court DISMISSES this case, in its entirety, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On April 15, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel Jacob Gillick of Gillick Legal, APC (“Gillick”) filed an unopposed ex parte motion to be relieved as counsel. ECF No. 135. The Court conducted a hearing on the motion to be relieved on May 8, 2025. ECF No. 141. After the hearing, the Court issued an Order instructing Gillick to contact his client and inform it of the pending motion to be relieved. ECF No. 142. Plaintiff was instructed to file a response to the Motion, indicating whether it consented to, or opposed, Gillick’s withdrawal. Jd. On May 18, 2025, Jerome Ramsaran, on behalf of Plaintiff, filed a declaration stating that he “consent[ed] to Mr. Gillick and Gillick Legal, APC being relieved as counsel of record in this matter.” ECF No. 144 at 2. Mr. Ramsaran also stated that he understood that “Medlink will need to retain new counsel” and he understood that “as a corporate party, Medlink must appear in this action through licensed legal counsel.” On June 6, 2025, the Court granted Gillick’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel and stayed the matter for 30 days to allow Plaintiff time to retain new counsel. ECF No. 148 7. In the June 6 Order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a notice of appearance for its counsel on or before July 7, 2025. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that, if it did not file notice of appearance by that date, “the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs claims for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) which permits the involuntary dismissal of a case ‘[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.’” Jd. at 8. The Court warned Plaintiff that “[t]he district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution.” Jd. The Court required Gillick serve the June 6 Order on Plaintiff and file a proof of service on the docket no later than 9, 2025. ECF No. 148 at 8. Gillick complied and filed the proof of service on the docket on June 8, 2025. The time for Plaintiff to retain new counsel has come and gone. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter. Dated: July 14, 2025 6 Dar C4 fe C2 ef Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge