Tomahawk Manufacturing, Inc. v. Spherical Industries, Inc.

Opinion

TOMAHAWK MANUFACTURING, INC., Case No.: 2:23-cv-01007-APG-NJK et al., 4 Order Plaintiffs 5 v. 6 SPHERICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 Counsel for the defendants have moved to withdraw. ECF Nos. 174; 179. Any party wishing to respond to those motions must file a response by January 31, 2024. I remind the 11}| defendants that defendant Christopher Duggan cannot represent defendants Will Hardy, 12} Spherical Industries Holdings LLC, or Spherical Industries, Inc. See Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (“It is well established that the privilege to represent oneself pro se provided by [28 U.S.C.] § 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other 15}| parties or entities.”); CLE. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) 16}| (stating that a non-attorney “has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself”). 17|| Spherical Industries Holdings LLC and Spherical Industries, Inc. must appear in this case through counsel. See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit IT Men’s Advisory Council, 506 191U.S. 194, 202 (1993) (stating that “a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through 20}| licensed counsel”); Jn re America W. Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Corporations other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”). 22 DATED this 17th day of January, 2024. OIA 23 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE