IN RE SK FOODS, L.P., CIV. S-11-2987 LKK. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120608a04
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 07, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2012
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. The parties have advised the court that this case is ready for oral argument. 1 In addition, the court recently granted the motion of Farella Braun + Martel LLP, to withdraw as counsel for all the Salyer entities in this case, other than CSSS, LP. 2 See Dkt. No. 36. Accordingly, the court orders as follows: 1. Oral argument in this case will be heard on July 23, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom Four; 2. The unrepresented Salyer business entities
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. The parties have advised the court that this case is ready for oral argument. 1 In addition, the court recently granted the motion of Farella Braun + Martel LLP, to withdraw as counsel for all the Salyer entities in this case, other than CSSS, LP. 2 See Dkt. No. 36. Accordingly, the court orders as follows: 1. Oral argument in this case will be heard on July 23, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom Four; 2. The unrepresented Salyer business entities ..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge.
The parties have advised the court that this case is ready for oral argument.1 In addition, the court recently granted the motion of Farella Braun + Martel LLP, to withdraw as counsel for all the Salyer entities in this case, other than CSSS, LP.2 See Dkt. No. 36. Accordingly, the court orders as follows:
1. Oral argument in this case will be heard on July 23, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom Four;
2. The unrepresented Salyer business entities may not appear or argue on their own behalf;3 therefore they cannot be heard at oral argument unless they have previously engaged counsel and counsel has entered an appearance in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See Dkt. No. 27.
2. Appellant CSSS, LP, was not included in the withdrawal motion. See Dkt. Nos. 30 & 31.
3. "A corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel," U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 826 (1994), and "as the courts have recognized, the rationale for that rule applies equally to all artificial entities." Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993).
Source: Leagle
