Montana Retail Store Employees Health and Welfare Plan v. C&S Jones Group LLC

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedDecember 14, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-01342
StatusUnknown

This text of Montana Retail Store Employees Health and Welfare Plan v. C&S Jones Group LLC (Montana Retail Store Employees Health and Welfare Plan v. C&S Jones Group LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Montana Retail Store Employees Health and Welfare Plan v. C&S Jones Group LLC, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 MONTANA RETAIL STORE CASE NO. 2:23-cv-1342 8 EMPLOYEES HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN; NICOLAI ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 9 COCERGINE, and DANNY MA, in MOTION TO STRIKE AND their capacity as Trustees of the Health ORDERING DEFENDANT TO OBTAIN 10 Fund, COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS

11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 C&S JONES GROUP LLC, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This is an ERISA case. On August 29, 2023, Plaintiffs Montana Retail Store 17 Employees Health and Welfare Plan (“Health Fund”), Nicolai Cocergine, and Danny 18 Ma filed a complaint alleging that Defendant C&S Jones failed to timely pay 19 contributions under their contract and seeking liquidated damages. Dkt. No. 1 at 9. 20 A process server provided C&S Jones’s registered agent with a copy of the complaint 21 and summons on October 18, 2023. Dkt. No. 6. Claiming to act on behalf of C&S 22 Jones, Charles Wendell filed a document styled as a pro se answer on November 8, 23 1 2023. Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiffs move to strike the answer filed by Wendell because he is 2 not an attorney and C&S Jones has not properly appeared. Dkt. No. 9.

3 As a general rule, although non-attorneys may represent themselves in a 4 lawsuit, they have no authority to represent others. C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. 5 United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). “Unincorporated associations, like 6 corporations, must appear through an attorney; except in extraordinary 7 circumstances, they cannot be represented by laypersons.” Church of the New 8 Testament v. United States, 783 F.2d 771, 773 (9th Cir. 1986). The Local Civil Rules

9 make this clear: “[a] business entity . . . must be represented by counsel.” LCR 10 83.2(b)(4). Failure to obtain proper legal representation may result in “entry of 11 default against the business entity as to any claims of other parties.” Id. 12 Because Wendell is not a lawyer, he cannot represent C&S Jones. Further, 13 C&S Jones cannot file documents with the Court unless it is represented by counsel. 14 Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the answer, Dkt. No. 8, and ORDERS C&S Jones 15 to obtain counsel within 30 days of this order or risk possible entry of default. The

16 Court also STRIKES its order regarding initial disclosures and joint status report, 17 Dkt. No. 5, and its minute order extending the deadline for filing the joint status 18 report by January 19, 2024, Dkt. No. 10. The Court will issue a new initial 19 scheduling order when C&S Jones appears through counsel. 20 Dated this 14th day of December, 2023. 21 A 22 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 23

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Montana Retail Store Employees Health and Welfare Plan v. C&S Jones Group LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montana-retail-store-employees-health-and-welfare-plan-v-cs-jones-group-wawd-2023.