UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
March 6, 2013
BE IN, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
GOOGLE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; RICHARD ROBINSON, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 3 INCLUSIVE,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Court United States District Judge
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
ORDER R BE IN, INC. EQUIRING TO FILE A NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL
On February 19, 2013, counsel for Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff. See ECF No. 28 ("Mot."). Plaintiff's counsel contends that 21 good cause exists to permit Movants' withdrawal of counsel of record because "Be In has breached 22 and remains in breach of agreements with or obligation to Movants as to expenses and fees." Mot. 23 at 2. Movants also assert that they have taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to Be 24 In. Id. at 4. Further, Movants state that Be In has "located replacement counsel, although the 25 substitution has not yet been executed." Id. On March 5, 2013, Defendants filed a Statement of 26 Non-Opposition to Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff. ECF No. 29. 27 28 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-9(b), "[a] corporation, unincorporated association, 2 partnership or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court." 3
Therefore, Be In, Inc., a New York corporation, cannot represent itself in this matter. See Rowland 4 v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202-03 (1993) (holding 5 that only natural persons can petition courts themselves and appear pro se); see also Licht v. 6 America West Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir.1994) ("Corporations ... must appear in court 7 through an attorney."). Thus, by March 13, 2013, Be In, Inc. shall file a Notice of Substitution of 8 Counsel. 9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.