From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Best Western Int'l, Inc. v. Palace Invs., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Mar 12, 2012
CIV. 11-1878-PHX-PGR (D. Ariz. Mar. 12, 2012)

Opinion

CIV. 11-1878-PHX-PGR

03-12-2012

Best Western International, Inc., an Arizona non-profit corporation, Plaintiff, v. Palace Investments, Inc., a Michigan corporation; Michelle Bulinda, a Michigan resident, Defendants.


ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer. (Doc. 25.) Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint on November 18, 2011. (Doc. 15.) Defendants filed their Answer on November 29, 2011. (Doc. 16.) On January 6, 2012, Defendants' counsel filed an application to withdraw, which the court granted. (Docs. 20, 21.) The Court ordered Defendants to obtain new counsel and file a notice of appearance by February 13, 2012. (Doc. 21.) To date, no counsel has appeared on behalf of Defendant Palace Investments, Inc., which, as a corporation, may appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney. Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993). Defendants also failed to appear at the scheduling conference on February 27, 2012.

Based on these circumstances, as well as Defendants' failure to respond to discovery requests, provide a disclosure statement, or participate in the case management conference, Plaintiff asks the Court to strike Defendants' answer and enter default.

The Court will grant Plaintiff's motion with respect to Palace Investments, Inc. Default is a permissible sanction where a corporation fails to retain counsel. United States v. High Country Broadcasting, Inc., 2 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993); see Employee Painters' Trust v. Ethan Enterprises, Inc., 480 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2007).

The Court will also grant the motion with respect to Defendant Michelle Bulinda under Rules 16(f) and 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has considered the factors set forth in Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000), and concluded, in view of Defendant Bulima's failure to comply with the Court's orders or otherwise participate in the litigation, that the public interest in the expeditious resolution of this case and the court's interest in managing its docket outweigh the policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits and that less drastic alternatives are not available.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. 25). The Clerk of the Court shall strike Defendants' Answer (Doc. 16).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter default against Defendants Palace Investments, Inc., and Michelle Bulinda.

_____________

Paul G. Rosenblatt

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Best Western Int'l, Inc. v. Palace Invs., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Mar 12, 2012
CIV. 11-1878-PHX-PGR (D. Ariz. Mar. 12, 2012)
Case details for

Best Western Int'l, Inc. v. Palace Invs., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Best Western International, Inc., an Arizona non-profit corporation…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Mar 12, 2012

Citations

CIV. 11-1878-PHX-PGR (D. Ariz. Mar. 12, 2012)