ORDER

[Motion to Withdraw As Counsel (#25)]

CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on the Motion to Withdraw As Attorneys of Record for Defendants (#25) filed July 29, 2013.

Relevant Background

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on December 5, 2012. (#1). Defendants filed an Answer on February 13, 2013. (#16). On March 28, 2013, the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order was filed and approved by the Court on March 29, 2013. (#'s 18 & 19). The parties filed their Joint Status Report on June 12, 2013. (#22). On June 18, 2013, the Court scheduled a settlement conference for October 7, 2013. (#24). Defendants' counsel, D. Shane Clifford, Esq., filed a Motion to Withdraw as Attorneys of Record for Defendants on July 29, 2013. (#25). On August 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (#26).

Motion to Withdraw As Attorneys

In the Motion to Withdraw as Attorneys of Record for Defendants, Mr. Clifford asserts that good cause for withdrawal exists because "Defendants' counsel is no longer able to effectively represent said Defendants due to their failure to pay any legal costs and fees associated with their representation in this matter." (#25).

Discussion

Local Rule IA 10-6 provides that "no withdrawal . . . shall be approved if delay of discovery, the trial or any hearing in the case would result." This action was filed on December 5, 2012 (#1), no trial date has been entered for this matter; therefore, there would not be a delay if Defendants' counsel withdraw at this stage.

To date, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to the Motion to Withdraw As Counsel. Local Rule 7-2(d) states that "[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion."

The Court recognizes that good cause exist for counsel to withdraw from this action; however, the Court also recognizes that there is a Motion for Summary Judgment (#26) pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1654 provides that "[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally." See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). Although individuals may represent themselves pursuant to this statute, a corporation is not permitted to appear in Federal Court unless it is represented by counsel. U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993). An individual also does not have the right to appear on behalf of anyone other than himself. Pope, 818 F.2d at 697. The Ninth Circuit has permitted motions to strike and motions to dismiss pleadings filed by pro se parties on behalf of entities including trusts. Id. at 698; United States v. Nagy, C11-5066BHS, 2011 WL 3502488 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 10, 2011). The Court thus advises Defendants Big Town Mechanical, LLC, Big Town Service, LLC, Big Town Mechanical Corp., Liberty Duct, LLC, B.B.H., LLC, J&H Barton Family Trust Dated March 8, 2000, and McNulty Family Trust Dated February 8, 2006 that they may not proceed pro se, because corporations and trusts must be represented by counsel. See Simon v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir.2008).

Accordingly, and for Good Cause Shown,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: