Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05416/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05416-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1451 E.R.I.S.A.

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES PENSION 

TRUST FUND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MACY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05416-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO STRIKE

Re: Dkt. No. 48

On September 4, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants Macy Automotive, 

Inc. and Macy’s Automotive Pro’s (“Macy’s Pro’s”), asserting violations of the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On August 16, 2019, 

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to strike Defendant Macy’s Pro’s answer because Defendant 

Macy’s Pro’s is an unrepresented corporation, and to direct the Clerk of the Court to enter entry of 

default. (Pls.’ Mot. to Strike at 1, Dkt. No. 48.) No opposition was filed.

The Court deems the matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 7-1(b), and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. “It is a longstanding rule that corporations 

and other unincorporated association must appear in court through an attorney.” D-Beam, ltd. 

P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Rowland v. 

Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993). Further, “[w]hen a corporation fails to retain 

counsel to represent it in an action, its answer may be stricken . . . .” Rojas v. Hawgs Seafood Bar, 

Case No. 08-cv-3819-JF, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41435, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2009) (citing 

Employee Painters’ Trust v. Ethan Enters., Inc., 480 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2007)).

Here, Defendant Macy’s Pro’s is a corporation, and has been unrepresented by counsel 

since its prior counsel was permitted to withdraw on June 4, 2019. (Dkt. No. 43.) Indeed, 

Case 3:18-cv-05416-WHA Document 51 Filed 09/17/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Christina Morrison, the owner of Defendant Macy’s Pro’s, filed a declaration stating that she did 

not intend to find other counsel because Defendant Macy’s Pro’s has no money. (Morrison Decl. 

¶ 4, Dkt. No. 36-1.) Thus, the Court strikes Defendant Macy’s Pro’s answer. Plaintiff may move 

the Clerk of the Court to enter default as to Defendant Macy’s Pro’s.

The September 24, 2019 case management conference is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05416-WHA Document 51 Filed 09/17/19 Page 2 of 2