Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied without prejudice the parties’ stipulation to stay all discovery and trial deadlines pending PIV Enterprises, Inc.’s retention of new counsel. The court also addressed the pending withdrawal motion and noted that a corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should indefinitely stay all discovery and trial deadlines pending PIV's retention of substitute counsel.
- Whether PIV's counsel could withdraw without addressing whether PIV had been informed that a corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel.
Holdings
- The court denied the stipulation to stay all dates in the scheduling order without prejudice because the request was sweeping, indefinite, and did not identify when new counsel would be retained or how much additional time would be required.
- A corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel and may not represent itself in propria persona.
Key quotations
“A corporation or other entity may appear only by an attorney” (at 1)
“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries, for example, that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel” (at 1-2)
“The Court shall decline to enter the parties’ sweeping stipulation to stay all deadlines and vacate pending dates until PIV retains new counsel.” (at 3)
Factual background
The court had entered a scheduling order setting discovery deadlines, a dispositive-motion deadline, a pretrial conference, and trial. PIV's counsel moved to withdraw because anticipated replacement counsel had not appeared, and the parties sought an indefinite stay of all scheduling-order dates pending substitution. MNI also had a court-ordered deadline to produce written discovery following PIV's motion to compel.
Procedural history
A scheduling order set discovery, dispositive-motion, pretrial-conference, and trial deadlines. After PIV's counsel moved to withdraw, the parties stipulated to stay all dates in the scheduling order; the court denied the stipulation without prejudice and addressed issues concerning PIV's continued representation.