ORDER CONSTRUING DEFENDANT'S LETTER AS AN ANSWER AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A RESPONSE

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO UPDATE HIS ADDRESS WITH THE COURT

(Docs. 13, 17)

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

On October 8, 2014, J&J Sports Production, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint alleging that Defendant Martin Carrillo ("Defendant") unlawfully intercepted and exhibited the closed-circuit program "Timothy Bradley v. Juan Manuel Marquez WBO Welterweight Championship Fight Program" at his commercial establishment, La Nayarita Restaurant ("La Nayarita"), located at 702 L Street, in Sanger, California. The Summons and Complaint were served on Defendant by personal service on February 3, 2015. (Doc. 9). Defendant did not answer the complaint, and the Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendant on February 25, 2015. (Doc. 13).

On March 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment requesting that the Court enter a judgment against Plaintiff for damages in the amount of $25,600.00. (Doc. 14-5). On June 10, 2015, Mr. Gene Pico mailed a letter to the Court on behalf of Defendant stating that Defendant, whose primary language is Spanish, was unable to respond to the Complaint because he is unfamiliar with the legal system. Mr. Pico explained that Defendant no longer owns or operates La Nayarita Restaurant, and therefore Defendant had no knowledge of the interception and broadcast of the Bradley v. Marquez fight at La Nayarita Restaurant on October 12, 2013. (Doc. 17).

The Court construes this document as a motion by Defendant, appearing pro se, to set aside the Clerk's entry of default and answer to the Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be allowed an opportunity to respond to Defendant's letter. See Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington Rests. Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's motion is due on or before July 10, 2015.

Defendant Martin Carrillo is FURTHER advised that although he has the right to appear on his own behalf in this action, Mr. Pico has no authority to appear as an attorney for Defendant here. Mr. Pico may not file papers or represent defendant. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997)(a non-attorney proceeding pro se may bring his own claims to court, but may not represent others). Further, while the Court acknowledges the difficulties Defendant's English-language limitations may pose for him in this action, generally the Court is not authorized to appoint interpreters for litigants in civil cases and pro se civil litigants have no entitlement to an interpreter or translator. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Loyola v. Potter, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36179, 2009 WL 1033398, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2009) ("The court is not authorized to appoint interpreters for litigants in civil cases, and, moreover, has no funds to pay for such a program."). Under these circumstances, Defendant is advised to retain counsel, however, if Defendant wishes to proceed pro se, he has an obligation under federal and local rules to prosecute this case diligently, despite appearing in pro per. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) ("Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.")

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

IT IS SO ORDERED.