Will Co Ltd v. Lee

W.D. Washington

Will Co Ltd v. Lee

DecidedMay 28, 2024

Docket3:20-cv-05802

StatusUnknown

This text of Will Co Ltd v. Lee (Will Co Ltd v. Lee) 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

Will Co Ltd v. Lee, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 WILL CO. LTD. a limited liability CASE NO. C20-5802 BHS 8 company organized under the laws of Japan, ORDER 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 KA YEUNG LEE, an individual; YOUHAHA MARKETING AND 12 PROMOTION LIMITED, a foreign company; and DOES 1-20 d/b/a 13 THISAV.COM, 14 Defendant. 15

This matter is before the Court on counsel for Defendants Ka Yeung Lee and 16 YouHaHa Marketing and Promotion Limited’s unopposed motion to withdraw, Dkt. 51, 17 and Plaintiff Will Co. Ltd.’s unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended 18 complaint, Dkt. 48. 19 An artificial entity—such as a limited company—cannot represent itself in court 20 pro se and may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. Rowland v. 21 California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993); 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Local Rules, W.D. 22 1 Wash., LCR 83.2(b)(4). Counsel representing a business entity and seeking to withdraw 2 must certify to the Court that they have advised the business entity of this legal

3 requirement: 4 A business entity, except a sole proprietorship, must be represented by counsel. If the attorney for a business entity, except a sole 5 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 6 represented by an attorney admitted to practice before this court and that failure to obtain a replacement attorney by the date the withdrawal is 7 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 8 any claims of other parties.

9 LCR 83.2(b)(4). 10 In seeking to withdraw, counsel for Defendant YouHaHa certify “that they have 11 advised defendants that their withdrawal may result in an entry of default against them.” 12 Dkt. 51, ¶ 6. However, defense counsel do not certify that they have advised YouHaHa 13 that it is required by law to be represented by an attorney admitted to practice before this 14 Court. See LCR 83.2(b)(4). The motion to withdraw, Dkt. 51, is accordingly DENIED 15 with leave to refile in accordance with this District’s local rules. 16 Will Co.’s unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, Dkt. 17 48, is GRANTED. Will Co. shall promptly file its second amended complaint. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated this 28th day of May, 2024. A 20 21 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 22 United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 WILL CO. LTD. a limited liability CASE NO. C20-5802 BHS 8 company organized under the laws of Japan, ORDER 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 KA YEUNG LEE, an individual; YOUHAHA MARKETING AND 12 PROMOTION LIMITED, a foreign company; and DOES 1-20 d/b/a 13 THISAV.COM, 14 Defendant. 15

This matter is before the Court on counsel for Defendants Ka Yeung Lee and 16 YouHaHa Marketing and Promotion Limited’s unopposed motion to withdraw, Dkt. 51, 17 and Plaintiff Will Co. Ltd.’s unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended 18 complaint, Dkt. 48. 19 An artificial entity—such as a limited company—cannot represent itself in court 20 pro se and may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. Rowland v. 21 California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993); 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Local Rules, W.D. 22 1 Wash., LCR 83.2(b)(4). Counsel representing a business entity and seeking to withdraw 2 must certify to the Court that they have advised the business entity of this legal

3 requirement: 4 A business entity, except a sole proprietorship, must be represented by counsel. If the attorney for a business entity, except a sole 5 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 6 represented by an attorney admitted to practice before this court and that failure to obtain a replacement attorney by the date the withdrawal is 7 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 8 any claims of other parties.

9 LCR 83.2(b)(4). 10 In seeking to withdraw, counsel for Defendant YouHaHa certify “that they have 11 advised defendants that their withdrawal may result in an entry of default against them.” 12 Dkt. 51, ¶ 6. However, defense counsel do not certify that they have advised YouHaHa 13 that it is required by law to be represented by an attorney admitted to practice before this 14 Court. See LCR 83.2(b)(4). The motion to withdraw, Dkt. 51, is accordingly DENIED 15 with leave to refile in accordance with this District’s local rules. 16 Will Co.’s unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, Dkt. 17 48, is GRANTED. Will Co. shall promptly file its second amended complaint. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated this 28th day of May, 2024. A 20 21 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 22 United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Will Co Ltd v. Lee, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/will-co-ltd-v-lee-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack