Panacea Plant Sciences Inc v. Garland

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 16, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00477
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8

9 PANACEA PLANT SCIENCES, INC., and Case No. C24-477RSM DAVID HELDRETH, CEO, 10 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EX 11 Plaintiffs, PARTE REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT COUNSEL 12 v. 13 MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official 14 capacity as U.S. Attorney General, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ ex parte Motion requesting the Court 18 grant Panacea Plant Sciences, Inc. (“PPS”) “the ability to assign a PPS corporate director to act 19 in the pro se capacity in place of an attorney…” Dkt. #7 at 1. The person PPS has in mind is 20 already a party in the case—Plaintiff David Heldreth. PPS warns that the Court risks violating 21 22 the 14th Amendment by “restricting corporations’ equal access” to “rights.” Id. The Motion 23 references “Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Citizens United v. FEC,” without citation and with no 24 other legal citations or analysis. Id. The Motion acknowledges that “[t]he right to a pro se 25 representation by a corporation has yet to be heard by the Supreme Court…” Id. at 2. 26 Plaintiffs declare that “LCR 83.2 should be revoked and removed from local rules as 27 28 unconstitutional.” Id. Little else is said by Plaintiffs on the matter. “It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may 1 2 appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 3 U.S. 194, 202, 113 S. Ct. 716, 121 L. Ed. 2d 656 (1993). The Ninth Circuit has also reminded 4 litigants that “[c]orporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court 5 through an attorney.” In re Am. W. Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994); see also 6 United States v. High Country Broad. Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that 7 8 a corporation’s president and sole shareholder could not make “an end run” around the counsel 9 requirement by intervening pro se rather than retaining counsel to represent the corporation). 10 This Court’s Local Civil Rule 83.2(b)(4) likewise requires that “[a] business entity, except a 11 sole proprietorship, must be represented by counsel.” 12 13 Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that LCR 83.2(b)(4) is unconstitutional or that PPS 14 has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel contrary to what the Supreme Court has 15 called “the law for the better part of two centuries.” 16 Accordingly, having considered the above Motion and the remainder of the record, the 17 Court hereby FINDS and ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Motion, Dkt. #7, is DENIED. Plaintiff 18 19 Panacea Plant Sciences, Inc. is DIRECTED to secure counsel and for that counsel to make an 20 appearance in this case prior to the filing of future motions or requests for relief, and in any 21 event no later than May 16, 2024. 22 DATED this 16th day of April, 2024. 23 24 A 25 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28