Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00739/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00739-0/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 1

 The complaint as well as the Court’s own legal research indicates that Mr. Su is PG&H’s

registered agent for service of process. See Compl. ¶ 12.

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 RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS

(Docket No. 10)

Plaintiffs are various “Bell” telephone companies. They have filed suit against Defendant

PG&H Communication, Inc., alleging that its failure to pay certain access charges is a violation of

federal tariffs. Based on its name as well as the allegations in the complaint and the Court’s own

legal research of the public records of the California Secretary of State, PG&H appears to be a

corporation. See Compl. ¶ 12 (alleging that PG&H is a California corporation). On March 16,

2015, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of PG&H by an individual named Ying Su. See

Docket No. 10, at 2 (motion) (suggesting that the case should have been filed in a district in

Southern California, and not this district, as that is where PG&H does business). Mr. Su does not

appear to be an attorney, as indicated by his self-identification as “pro se” and his statement that

“PG&H is a minor company with limited resources [that] can afford neither a lawyer nor send me,

who is bound with duties home, to its defence [sic] in Northern California.”1

 See Docket No. 10, at

2 (motion).

Case 3:15-cv-00739-EMC Document 19 Filed 04/14/15 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

Under Civil Local Rule 3-9(b), a corporation “may appear only through a member of the bar

of this Court.” Civ. L.R. 3-9(b); see also In re Am. W. Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994)

(stating that “[c]orporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an

attorney”). Because Mr. Su is not an attorney, the Court cannot consider the merits of the motion to

dismiss that Mr. Su filed on PG&H’s behalf. Accordingly, the Court hereby STRIKES the motion

to dismiss from the record, and the hearing on the motion to dismiss is VACATED.

The Court also takes this opportunity to advise PG&H that not only (1) can it not appear pro

per in this litigation but also (2) it can be sanctioned with an entry of default and default judgment

should it fail to timely make an appearance through an attorney. See Employee Painters’ Trust v.

Ethan Enters., Inc., 480 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing default as a permissible sanction

for failure to comply with local rules requiring representation by counsel).

Plaintiffs are ordered to immediately serve a copy of this order on PG&H and Mr. Su and file

a proof of service with the Court.

This order disposes of Docket No. 10.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00739-EMC Document 19 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 2