Filed: Jan. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 24, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 16 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff William Warren filed this pro se civil action on his own behalf and on behalf of We 2 Corp. on August 29, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1.) However, a corporation cannot be represented by a non-attorney. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) ("A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court."); see also Rowland v. California Men's Colony,
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 16 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff William Warren filed this pro se civil action on his own behalf and on behalf of We 2 Corp. on August 29, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1.) However, a corporation cannot be represented by a non-attorney. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) ("A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court."); see also Rowland v. California Men's Colony, ..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 16
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff William Warren filed this pro se civil action on his own behalf and on behalf of We 2 Corp. on August 29, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1.) However, a corporation cannot be represented by a non-attorney. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) ("A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court."); see also Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) ("a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel").
Further, although the Clerk issued the summons on September 1, 2017, Plaintiff failed to serve Defendants within 90 days and failed to appear at the Case Management Conference on November 30, 2017. (Dkt. No. 7.) Accordingly, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute based on Plaintiff's failure to serve the Defendants and failure to appear at the Case Management Conference. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the Court's Order, but he filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on some of the Defendants on December 11, 2017. (Dkt. Nos. 9 & 10.) Defendants the City and County of San Francisco, and Kathleen McCann responded by filing separate motions to dismiss, which Plaintiff has not opposed, although the time to do so has run. (Dkt. Nos. 11 & 16.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff is again ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff shall simultaneously show cause in writing and respond to the pending motions to dismiss by February 13, 2018. The hearing on the motions to dismiss is reset for March 1, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom F, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California.
Plaintiff is also advised that We 2 Corp. must obtain counsel in order to proceed with this action. Plaintiff may contact the Legal Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, Telephone No. (415)-782-8982, for free assistance regarding his claims.
Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the dismissal of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
