Opinion
CV-20-02091-PHX-SPL
04-21-2022
ThermoLife International LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BPI Sports LLC, Defendant.
ORDER
Honorable Steven P. Logan United States District Judge.
On April 8, 2022, Plaintiffs ThermoLife International, LLC (“ThermoLife”) and MuscleBeach Nutrition, LLC (“MuscleBeach Nutrition”) filed a Second Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs (Doc. 56). In addition to indicating that Counsel's attorney-client relationship with Plaintiffs had been terminated and that withdrawal was in order, the Motion further noted that Plaintiffs had identified replacement counsel who is apparently “located out of state and is currently preparing his pro hac application.” (Doc. 56 at 2). Plaintiffs also indicated that “they intend to request a 30-day extension to the deadlines to file responses to the two motions currently pending before the Court [Dkt.##52-53].” (Id.). 1
The Court is also in receipt of Defendant's Notice of Non-Opposition (Doc. 59). The Court has considered the Notice and declines to rule on the pending motions at this time.
On April 11, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs (Doc. 57).
The Court has not yet received any pro hac application from Plaintiffs' replacement counsel, nor has counsel otherwise appeared for Plaintiffs in this action. In light of Counsel's withdrawal, the Court will grant Plaintiffs an extension to retain counsel and file responses to the pending Motion for Extension (Doc. 52) and Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 53). The failure to respond to these motions may be treated as consent to the granting of the motions. See LRCiv. 7.2(i).
As stated in this Court's previous two Orders (Docs. 55 & 57), ThermoLife and MuscleBeach Nutrition, as entities, cannot appear pro se in this matter. See In re Am. W. Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”); Calzada-Zubiria v. Empyrean W. LLC, No. CV-14-02106-PHX-DJH, 2014 WL 12672636, at *1 (D. Ariz. Dec. 16, 2014) (“[T]he Court is compelled to clarify that LLCs, in contrast to individuals, may not appear pro se.”).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall have until no later than May 5, 2022 to, first, obtain counsel and for said counsel to appear in this matter and, second, respond to the two motions currently pending before the Court (Docs. 52 & 53). If Plaintiffs fail to do so, the Court advises Plaintiffs that it will treat both pending motions as unopposed. 2