Pacific Surgical Institute of Pain Management, Inc. v. Becerra

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 7, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01521
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 PACIFIC SURGICAL INSTITUTE Case No. 22-cv-01521-BAS-WVG 13 OF PAIN MANAGEMENT, INC., ORDER: 14 Plaintiff, (1) TENTATIVELY 15 v. GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 16 XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary of (ECF No. 11); AND the U.S. Department of Health & 17 Human Services, (2) WARNING PLAINTIFF THAT THIS ACTION MAY 18 Defendant. BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN 19 NEW COUNSEL 20 21 Plaintiff Pacific Surgical Institute of Pain Management, Inc. is a California 22 corporation seeking mandamus relief concerning a dispute under the Medicare Act. 23 On May 11, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw. (ECF No. 11.) 24 The Motion is unopposed, with a June 22, 2023, hearing date set for briefing 25 purposes. (Id.) 26 Pacific Surgical’s principal is facing an indictment in United States v. Smith et 27 al., 22-cr-2842-CAB (S.D. Cal. filed Dec. 13, 2022). Counsel, who has represented 1 as a witness in the criminal proceedings.” (Rifat Decl. ¶¶ 3–4, ECF No. 11-2.) 2 Counsel also submits that a dispute has arisen “concerning a non-litigated matter 3 which [counsel] considers serious enough of a disagreement to warrant his 4 withdrawal.” (Id. ¶ 4.) The Court finds there is good cause to support counsel’s 5 withdrawal. 6 That said, allowing counsel to withdraw would leave Pacific Surgical as an 7 unrepresented corporation. Parties generally may plead and conduct their own cases 8 personally. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. However, “[o]nly natural persons representing their 9 individual interests in propria persona may appear in court without representation by 10 an attorney.” Civ. L.R. 83.3(j). “All other parties, including corporations, 11 partnerships and other legal entities, may appear in court only through an attorney 12 permitted to practice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3.” Id.; see also Rowland v. 13 Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better 14 part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only 15 through licensed counsel . . . . [T]hat rule applies equally to all artificial entities.”); 16 United States v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 17 1993) (affirming district court’s entry of default judgment against the corporation 18 when the corporation failed to retain counsel for the duration of the litigation and 19 attempted to proceed through its unlicensed president and sole shareholder); 20 Greenspan v. Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, No. 14cv2396 JTM, 2014 WL 21 6847460, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2014) (dismissing corporate plaintiffs for failure 22 to obtain legal representation). Meaning, Plaintiff will need to secure new counsel 23 to continue with this case. 24 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 25 (1) The Court finds good cause to allow Pacific Surgical’s counsel to 26 withdraw. The Court tentatively grants the Motion to Withdraw pending 27 the instructions below. 1 (2) Counsel shall serve a copy of this Order on Pacific Surgical no later than 2 June 12, 2023. 3 (3) The Court warns Pacific Surgical that it cannot continue this action as an 4 unrepresented corporation. Pacific Surgical has been aware of counsel’s 5 intent to withdraw since early May. If Pacific Surgical does not obtain 6 new counsel and file a Notice of Substitution by June 22, 2023, the Court 7 will enter a dismissal without prejudice. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 || DATED: June 7, 2023 ( yt lig _( Ly harks sited Uiates District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28