Sonosuite SL, a Spanish limited liability company v. Rhapsody International Inc., a Delaware Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedDecember 9, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-00844
StatusUnknown

This text of Sonosuite SL, a Spanish limited liability company v. Rhapsody International Inc., a Delaware Corporation (Sonosuite SL, a Spanish limited liability company v. Rhapsody International Inc., a Delaware Corporation) 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
Sonosuite SL, a Spanish limited liability company v. Rhapsody International Inc., a Delaware Corporation, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 SONOSUITE SL, a Spanish limited CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00844-JNW 8 liability company, ORDER 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 RHAPSODY INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware Corporation, 12 Defendant. 13

14 On September 19, 2025, the Court granted Hollystone Laws’ unopposed 15 motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Rhapsody International Inc., which 16 left Rhapsody unrepresented. Dkt. No. 20. As corporations may not appear pro se in 17 federal court, the Court ordered substitute counsel to appear within 30 days. Id. at 18 2; D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973–74 (9th Cir. 19 2004) (quoting Licht v. Am. W. Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir.1994) (“It is a 20 longstanding rule that ‘[c]orporations and other unincorporated associations must 21 appear in court through an attorney.’”). The Court warned Rhapsody that failure to 22 obtain substitute counsel may result in entry of default and default judgment 23 1 against it. Dkt. No. 20 at 2; see also Emp. Painters’ Tr. v. Ethan Enters., Inc., 480 2 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding default against corporation proper because

3 the corporation failed to obtain new counsel after its counsel withdrew). 4 Because Rhapsody filed an answer before its counsel withdrew, entry of 5 default is appropriately ordered as a sanction for failure to comply with the Court’s 6 prior order and to participate in the litigation. See Butscher v. Moore, 611 F. App’x 7 456, 457 (9th Cir. 2015); see also TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 8 916 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Courts have inherent equitable powers to dismiss actions or

9 enter default judgments for failure to prosecute, contempt of court, or abusive 10 litigation practices.”). While such sanctions under the Court’s inherent powers are 11 “necessary to enable the judiciary to function,” they are not limitless. TeleVideo 12 Sys., Inc., 826 F.2d at 916. Indeed, “[t]he need for orderly administration of justice 13 does not permit violations of due process.” Id. 14 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant Rhapsody to appear through 15 licensed counsel and to show cause why the Court should not strike its answer and

16 direct the Clerk of the Court to enter default against it by no later than 17 December 23, 2025. To ensure Rhapsody has sufficient time to find new counsel and 18 appear, the Court RENOTES SonoSuite’s motion for entry of default to December 19 30, 2025. 20 21

22 23 1 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter this order and to mail a copy to

9 Defendant Rhapsody International Inc.’s address on file.

3 Dated this 9th day of December, 2025.

fake — 5 amal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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)
Sonosuite SL, a Spanish limited liability company v. Rhapsody International Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sonosuite-sl-a-spanish-limited-liability-company-v-rhapsody-international-wawd-2025.