Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00739/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00739-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE

COMPANY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PG&H COMMUNICATION, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-15-0739-EMC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiffs (various “Bell” telephone companies) initiated this action against Defendant

PG&H Communication, Inc. (“PG&H”) in February 2015. In March 2015, PG&H filed a motion to

dismiss. See Docket No. 10 (order). The Court struck the motion to dismiss from the record

because it was filed on behalf of PG&H by an individual who is not an attorney. See Docket No. 19

(order). In the same order, the Court advised PG&H that not only could it not appear pro per in this

lawsuit but that it could also be sanctioned with an entry of default and default judgment should it

fail to timely make an appearance through an attorney. See Docket No. 19 (order).

Subsequently, PG&H hired counsel to represent it. PG&H then filed an answer to Plaintiffs’

complaint as well as counterclaims of its own. See Docket No. 23 (answer and counterclaims). In

June 2015, however, counsel for PG&H asked for permission to withdraw, and the Court permitted

such. The Court also stayed the case until July 30, 2015, so that PG&H could obtain counsel. The

Court again emphasized for PG&H that it could not appear pro per and that it could be sanctioned

with an entry of default for failure to timely make an appearance through an attorney. See Docket

No. 28 (order).

Case 3:15-cv-00739-EMC Document 38 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

On July 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims. See Docket No. 33

(motion). The timing of the motion was improper given the Court’s stay of proceedings. 

Nevertheless, at this point, the stay has now expired – by approximately two weeks – and PG&H has

not made any comment about the motion to dismiss the counterclaims, nor has it had an attorney

make an appearance on its behalf.

Under the above circumstances, the Court hereby orders as follows.

The hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss (September 3, 2015) is temporarily VACATED. 

PG&H is ordered to show cause as to why its counterclaims should not be dismissed. In addition,

PG&H is ordered to show cause as to why a default should not be entered against it based on its

failure to have an attorney appear in the case to represent it. 

PG&H’s response to the order to show cause shall be filed by September 10, 2015. The

Court forewarns PG&H that, if it fails to have an attorney timely file a response to this order

to show cause, the Court shall (1) dismiss PG&H’s counterclaims and (2) enter a default

against PG&H with respect to the claims asserted by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall then have leave

to file a motion for default judgment against PG&H, consistent with the relief sought in their

complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00739-EMC Document 38 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 2