Opinion
2:21-cv-01207-APG-NJK
01-11-2022
CLEVELAND HILL ENDOWMENT, INC., Plaintiffs, v. ANDREW FLORES, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
This case was initiated with a complaint identifying the Plaintiff as Cleveland Hill Endowment, Inc. See Docket No. 1. Because corporations cannot proceed in federal court without a licensed attorney, on June 29, 2021, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file a notice of appearance of counsel. Docket No. 4 (citing United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993)). Rather than comply with that requirement, a motion was filed indicating that it is actually Timothy Cleveland who is the Plaintiff in this case. Docket No. 5 at 1.1 In light of these issues, on September 14, 2021, the undersigned issued an order requiring specific action:
To the extent this case is to proceed with Cleveland Hill Endowment as the Plaintiff, then an appearance of counsel must be filed by October 5, 2021. To the extent this case is to proceed with a natural person as the Plaintiff, then an amended complaint must be filed identifying that person as the Plaintiff and providing the allegations necessary to state a claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B); see also Vanguard Outdoor, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 748 (9th Cir. 2011) (a party may amend once as a matter of course when no Rule 12(b) motion or answer has been filed). Any such amended complaint must be filed by October 5, 2021.Docket No. 6 at 2. Neither an appearance of counsel nor an amended complaint was filed by the deadline set.
Complicating matters further, it does not appear that Mr. Cleveland is the allegedly aggrieved party, as that instead appears to be his mother. See id. at 2 (identifying Mr. Cleveland's mother as “the Unit Owner”); but see Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876-77 (9th Cir. 1997) (addressing rule that a non-attorney may not represent another person in federal court).
On November 3, 2021, the undersigned issued an order for Plaintiff Cleveland Hill Endowment, Inc. to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failing to be represented by a licensed attorney as ordered. Docket No. 11. Plaintiff filed a response. Docket No. 12. Plaintiff's response essentially has three components. First, Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel. See id. at 1-2. In an order issued concurrently herewith, the undersigned has denied that request because corporations are not eligible for appointment of counsel. Second, Plaintiff indicates that it has a First Amendment right as an exercise of free speech to proceed without counsel. See id. at 2. The undersigned disagrees. Courts have broad authority to control the requirements for litigation and have consistently held that it is appropriate to require licensed attorneys for corporations. See, e.g., Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, Unit IIMen's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel”). Plaintiff has cited no legal authority that this long-standing practice is inconsistent with First Amendment protections and the undersigned is not persuaded that it is. Third, and finally, Plaintiff argues that it is not necessary to have an attorney because “Plaintiff has the right to file a civil lawsuit” under the Fair Housing Act. See Docket No. 12 at 4-5. The undersigned is not persuaded. While an aggrieved party may have a right to file suit, that plaintiff must still comply with the governing rules once suit has been filed. As discussed at length, it is well-settled that a corporation cannot proceed with a federal lawsuit without obtaining counsel. The statutory authority identified by Plaintiff does not abrogate that requirement.
Plaintiff also notes that it has taken efforts to retain counsel, but has not had success in that endeavor. See Docket No. 12 at 2.
Without getting too deep into the weeds, the Court again notes that it is not clear that Plaintiff Cleveland Hill Endowment, Inc. is a proper party in this case as it appears that the aggrieved party is Mr. Cleveland's mother. See Docket No. 6 at 1-2. At any rate, a statute providing a general right to bring a lawsuit does not abrogate the requirement for corporations to appear in federal court with licensed counsel.
In short, Plaintiff has been afforded several opportunities to obtain counsel in this case (or to amend the complaint such that a natural person is named as the plaintiff). Plaintiff has not done so. “A corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel.” High Country Broadcasting, 3 F.3d at 1245. Plaintiff's failure to comply with the order to retain counsel is an abusive litigation practice that has interfered with the Court's ability to hear this case, delayed litigation, disrupted the Court's timely management of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened the integrity of the Court's orders and the orderly administration of justice. Sanctions less drastic than dismissal are unavailable because Plaintiff has been unable or unwilling to comply with the order to retain counsel and the Ninth Circuit has held that case-dispositive sanctions are appropriate for a corporation's failure to retain counsel for the duration of the litigation since corporations may not appear in federal court without licensed counsel. Id.
Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of a new case either with corporate counsel or with a natural person named as the plaintiff.