Whaleco Incorporated v. dltemuapp.com

D. Arizona

Whaleco Incorporated v. dltemuapp.com

DecidedAugust 9, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-02332

StatusUnknown

This text of Whaleco Incorporated v. dltemuapp.com (Whaleco Incorporated v. dltemuapp.com) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whaleco Incorporated v. dltemuapp.com, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

Whale co Incorporated, ) No. CV-23-02332-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) dltemuapp.com, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 )

15 The Court is in receipt of non-party Roy Dawson’s “Response to Court Summons” 16 (Doc. 24). Mr. Dawson is neither a party nor counsel or next friend to a party in this case 17 and therefore cannot properly file documents in this matter. See Gomez v. J. MacDonald, 18 No. ED CV 13-01367-VBF-SH, 2014 WL 4059938, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2014) 19 (collecting cases). Although Mr. Dawson’s letter states that he wrote the letter “in response 20 to the court summons,” (Doc. 23 at 2), it does not appear that Mr. Dawson is an attorney, 21 and he therefore cannot represent Defendants or file documents on their behalf. See Fed. 22 R. Civ. P. 11(a); Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 31.2.1 Thus, Mr. Dawson’s filing is improper and will 23 be stricken. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED that the Letter re: temu.markets by Non-Party Roy Dawson 25 (Doc. 24) is stricken. 26

27 1 Defendants are all entities and are not permitted to appear pro se in this matter. See In re Am. W. Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Corporations and other 28 unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”). 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Whaleco Incorporated’s Motion to 2| Strike Defendant Roy Dawson’s Letter (Doc. 29) is denied as moot. 3 Dated this 9" day of August, 2024. 4 5 6 LIC ES 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 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 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

Whale co Incorporated, ) No. CV-23-02332-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) dltemuapp.com, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 )

15 The Court is in receipt of non-party Roy Dawson’s “Response to Court Summons” 16 (Doc. 24). Mr. Dawson is neither a party nor counsel or next friend to a party in this case 17 and therefore cannot properly file documents in this matter. See Gomez v. J. MacDonald, 18 No. ED CV 13-01367-VBF-SH, 2014 WL 4059938, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2014) 19 (collecting cases). Although Mr. Dawson’s letter states that he wrote the letter “in response 20 to the court summons,” (Doc. 23 at 2), it does not appear that Mr. Dawson is an attorney, 21 and he therefore cannot represent Defendants or file documents on their behalf. See Fed. 22 R. Civ. P. 11(a); Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 31.2.1 Thus, Mr. Dawson’s filing is improper and will 23 be stricken. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED that the Letter re: temu.markets by Non-Party Roy Dawson 25 (Doc. 24) is stricken. 26

27 1 Defendants are all entities and are not permitted to appear pro se in this matter. See In re Am. W. Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Corporations and other 28 unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”). 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Whaleco Incorporated’s Motion to 2| Strike Defendant Roy Dawson’s Letter (Doc. 29) is denied as moot. 3 Dated this 9" day of August, 2024. 4 5 6 LIC ES 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Whaleco Incorporated v. dltemuapp.com, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whaleco-incorporated-v-dltemuappcom-azd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack