Will Co Ltd v. Lee

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA WILL CO. LTD. a limited liability CASE NO. C20-5802 BHS company organized under the laws of Japan, ORDER Plaintiff, v. KA YEUNG LEE, an individual; YOUHAHA MARKETING AND PROMOTION LIMITED, a foreign company; and DOES 1-20 d/b/a Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on counsel for Defendants Ka Yeung Lee and YouHaHa Marketing and Promotion Limited’s unopposed motion to withdraw, Dkt. 51, and Plaintiff Will Co. Ltd.’s unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, Dkt. 48. An artificial entity—such as a limited company—cannot represent itself in court pro se and may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993); 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Local Rules, W.D. Wash., LCR 83.2(b)(4). Counsel representing a business entity and seeking to withdraw must certify to the Court that they have advised the business entity of this legal

requirement: A business entity, except a sole proprietorship, must be represented by counsel. If the attorney for a business entity, except a sole proprietorship, is seeking to withdraw, the attorney shall certify to the court that he or she has advised the business entity that it is required by law to be represented by an attorney admitted to practice before this court and that failure to obtain a replacement attorney by the date the withdrawal is effective may result in the dismissal of the business entity’s claims for failure to prosecute and/or entry of default against the business entity as to any claims of other parties.

LCR 83.2(b)(4). In seeking to withdraw, counsel for Defendant YouHaHa certify “that they have advised defendants that their withdrawal may result in an entry of default against them.” Dkt. 51, ¶ 6. However, defense counsel do not certify that they have advised YouHaHa that it is required by law to be represented by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court. See LCR 83.2(b)(4). The motion to withdraw, Dkt. 51, is accordingly DENIED with leave to refile in accordance with this District’s local rules. Will Co.’s unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, Dkt. 48, is GRANTED. Will Co. shall promptly file its second amended complaint. Dated this 28th day of May, 2024. A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge