Opinion
1:23-cv-00085-JLT-EPG
09-08-2023
TAJ TRANSPORT INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. RASANJIT SINGH, et al., Defendants.
ORDER VACATING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL, AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED (ECF NOS. 23, 27)
On September 8, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the motion of Attorney Ashley DeGuzman to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs, also addressing the upcoming scheduling conference and Plaintiffs' future litigation of this case. (ECF Nos. 23, 27). Attorney DeGuzman appeared as did defense counsel, Attorney Gregory Blueford; however, no Plaintiff, or attorney on behalf of any Plaintiff, appeared.
For the reasons stated on the record, the Court will grant Attorney DeGuzman's motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs.
Additionally, as it is uncertain whether Plaintiffs intend to litigate this case further, the Court will vacate the scheduling conference scheduled for September 18, 2023, and require Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 18).
Notably, despite directing Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by no later than August 31, 2023, and advising them that failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action, Plaintiffs have filed nothing. (ECF No. 18). Similarly, despite Plaintiffs' purported intent to obtain new counsel in light of Attorney DeGuzman's request to withdraw, no attorney has entered an appearance for Plaintiffs, and Plaintiff Taj Transport Inc., a corporation, cannot be represented by a corporation if this case were to proceed without counsel. See Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (“While a non-attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, [h]e has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Moreover, neither Plaintiff nor a representative of Plaintiff appeared at the hearing, despite Attorney DeGuzman's representation that she advised them of the motion and hearing. (See ECF No. 25). All of these circumstances indicate that Plaintiffs do not intend to prosecute this case or comply with the Court's orders and thus the Court will require Plaintiffs to show cause why the action should not be dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The scheduling conference scheduled for September 18, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. is vacated. (ECF No. 18).
2. The motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 23) is granted, and the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Attorney Ashley DeGuzman as counsel of record for Plaintiffs and to update Plaintiffs' address and to send a copy of this order and all future orders to the follow address:
a. Taj Transport Inc., 2715 Keats Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611.
b. Palwinder Gharu, 2715 Keats Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611.
3. By no later than October 9, 2023, Plaintiffs are directed to file a response to this show cause order, explaining (1) why this case should not be dismissed; (2) whether they intend to litigate this matter further; and (3) whether they intend to obtain counsel.
4. If Plaintiffs fail to file any response to this order, they are advised that this action may be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.