Moreno v. Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc.

E.D. California

Moreno v. Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 11, 2023·No. 1:12-cv-00556·Unknown

Opinion

MARIA G. MORENO, et al. Case No. 1:12-cv-00556-JLT-CDB

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PROPOSED SUBSTITUTION OF v. ATTORNEY

CASTLEROCK FARMING AND (Doc. 137) TRANSPORT, INC., et al Defendants. On April 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Defendants Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc., J.L. Padilla & Sons Labor Service, Inc., Albert L. Good, and Melba Nunez Contracting. (Doc. 1). According to the operative complaint and other pleadings, Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting (form unknown) is a business entity and farm labor contractor. (Docs. 45, 86-1). Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting owned, controlled, or operated a business or establishment that employed class members in this case. (Doc. 45). Pending before the Court is the application of Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting for substitution of attorney. (Doc. 137). Although Defendant purports to substitute “Itself (In pro per)” in the place and stead of its current law firm (Raimondo Miller ALC), an entity may appear only by an attorney. See Local Rule 183(a). Unlicensed layerpersons, including the owners of not represent their entities “pro se.” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit IT Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries...that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel....[T]hat rule applies equally to all artificial entities.”); United States v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (same); In re Bigelow, 179 F.3d 1164, 1165 (9th Cir. 1999) (same). Here, it appears Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting’s request, if granted, would leave it without counsel and in violation of Local Rule 183(a). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting’s application for substitution of attorney (Doc. 137) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ll Tr IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 11, 2023 | bo UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

MARIA G. MORENO, et al. Case No. 1:12-cv-00556-JLT-CDB

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PROPOSED SUBSTITUTION OF v. ATTORNEY

CASTLEROCK FARMING AND (Doc. 137) TRANSPORT, INC., et al Defendants. On April 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Defendants Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc., J.L. Padilla & Sons Labor Service, Inc., Albert L. Good, and Melba Nunez Contracting. (Doc. 1). According to the operative complaint and other pleadings, Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting (form unknown) is a business entity and farm labor contractor. (Docs. 45, 86-1). Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting owned, controlled, or operated a business or establishment that employed class members in this case. (Doc. 45). Pending before the Court is the application of Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting for substitution of attorney. (Doc. 137). Although Defendant purports to substitute “Itself (In pro per)” in the place and stead of its current law firm (Raimondo Miller ALC), an entity may appear only by an attorney. See Local Rule 183(a). Unlicensed layerpersons, including the owners of not represent their entities “pro se.” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit IT Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries...that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel....[T]hat rule applies equally to all artificial entities.”); United States v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (same); In re Bigelow, 179 F.3d 1164, 1165 (9th Cir. 1999) (same). Here, it appears Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting’s request, if granted, would leave it without counsel and in violation of Local Rule 183(a). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting’s application for substitution of attorney (Doc. 137) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ll Tr IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 11, 2023 | bo UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Moreno v. Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Moreno v. Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc. (Moreno v. Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related