Moreno v. Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc.

E.D. California

Moreno v. Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc.

DecidedDecember 11, 2023

Docket1:12-cv-00556

StatusUnknown

This text of Moreno v. Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc. (Moreno v. Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

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

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PROPOSED SUBSTITUTION OF 13 v. ATTORNEY

14 CASTLEROCK FARMING AND (Doc. 137) TRANSPORT, INC., et al 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On April 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Defendants Castlerock 19 Farming and Transport, Inc., J.L. Padilla & Sons Labor Service, Inc., Albert L. Good, and Melba 20 Nunez Contracting. (Doc. 1). According to the operative complaint and other pleadings, 21 Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting (form unknown) is a business entity and farm labor 22 contractor. (Docs. 45, 86-1). Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting owned, controlled, or operated 23 a business or establishment that employed class members in this case. (Doc. 45). 24 Pending before the Court is the application of Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting for 25 substitution of attorney. (Doc. 137). Although Defendant purports to substitute “Itself (In pro 26 per)” in the place and stead of its current law firm (Raimondo Miller ALC), an entity may appear 27 only by an attorney. See Local Rule 183(a). Unlicensed layerpersons, including the owners of 28 1 || not represent their entities “pro se.” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit IT Men’s Advisory 2 || Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two 3 centuries...that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed 4 || counsel....[T]hat rule applies equally to all artificial entities.”); United States v. High Country 5 || Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (same); In re Bigelow, 179 F.3d 1164, 6 || 1165 (9th Cir. 1999) (same). 7 Here, it appears Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting’s request, if granted, would leave it 8 || without counsel and in violation of Local Rule 183(a). 9 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting’s 10 || application for substitution of attorney (Doc. 137) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 11 ll Tr IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 11, 2023 | bo 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

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

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PROPOSED SUBSTITUTION OF 13 v. ATTORNEY

14 CASTLEROCK FARMING AND (Doc. 137) TRANSPORT, INC., et al 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On April 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Defendants Castlerock 19 Farming and Transport, Inc., J.L. Padilla & Sons Labor Service, Inc., Albert L. Good, and Melba 20 Nunez Contracting. (Doc. 1). According to the operative complaint and other pleadings, 21 Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting (form unknown) is a business entity and farm labor 22 contractor. (Docs. 45, 86-1). Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting owned, controlled, or operated 23 a business or establishment that employed class members in this case. (Doc. 45). 24 Pending before the Court is the application of Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting for 25 substitution of attorney. (Doc. 137). Although Defendant purports to substitute “Itself (In pro 26 per)” in the place and stead of its current law firm (Raimondo Miller ALC), an entity may appear 27 only by an attorney. See Local Rule 183(a). Unlicensed layerpersons, including the owners of 28 1 || not represent their entities “pro se.” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit IT Men’s Advisory 2 || Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two 3 centuries...that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed 4 || counsel....[T]hat rule applies equally to all artificial entities.”); United States v. High Country 5 || Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (same); In re Bigelow, 179 F.3d 1164, 6 || 1165 (9th Cir. 1999) (same). 7 Here, it appears Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting’s request, if granted, would leave it 8 || without counsel and in violation of Local Rule 183(a). 9 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Melba Nunez Contracting’s 10 || application for substitution of attorney (Doc. 137) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 11 ll Tr IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 11, 2023 | bo 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Moreno v. Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moreno-v-castlerock-farming-and-transport-inc-caed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack