Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01733/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01733-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Coast Investment Group, LLC; BJ Gunner

Investments LLC; Coast Investments

Group, LLC, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Arizona Department of Housing; Michael

Trailor, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1733-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On August 24, 2009, the Judge to whom this case was previously assigned ordered

that this case would be dismissed if Plaintiffs failed to obtain an attorney; the Judge ordered

Plaintiffs to obtain counsel because limited liability companies can not appear in state court

without an attorney (state court being where the complaint was originally filed). See Doc.

#7 at 2. The same is true in federal court. See D-Beam Ltd. P'ship v. Roller Derby Skates,

Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004). Consistent with state law, the Judge ordered that

Plaintiffs would be given an opportunity to obtain an attorney. Specifically, the Judge

ordered that Plaintiffs had to obtain an attorney and that the attorney had to file an amended

complaint on their behalf by September 11, 2009, or Defendants’ motion to dismiss the

complaint due to the lack of an attorney would be granted. Doc. #7 at 4.

Case 2:09-cv-01733-JAT Document 15 Filed 09/28/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Plaintiffs did not obtain an attorney by September 11, 2009 and instead moved this

Court for an extension of time to obtain an attorney (Doc. #12). Plaintiffs also moved to

remand to state court (Doc. #13). Defendants moved to strike both of these filings by the pro

se limited liability companies (Doc. #14).

Defendants are correct that the pro se Plaintiffs cannot make legal arguments;

therefore the motion to strike the motion to remand will be granted. As for the motion for

extension of time, the Court will give Plaintiffs one extension of the prior deadline to obtain

counsel. If Plaintiffs fail to obtain counsel within the deadlines set below, the Court will

grant the motion to dismiss (Doc. #2) without further notice to Plaintiffs and without oral

argument. Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for extension of time (Doc. #12) is granted

as follows: Plaintiffs shall obtain an attorney who files a notice of appearance by October 13,

2009; said attorney shall file an amended complaint by October 20, 2009. As stated above,

if Plaintiffs fail to obtain counsel within these deadlines, Defendants’ motion to dismiss will

be granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. #14) is

granted in part and denied in part as follows: Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Doc. #13) is

stricken; Plaintiffs’ motion to extend time (Doc. #12) is not stricken.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (Doc. #2) remains pending.

DATED this 28th day of September, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01733-JAT Document 15 Filed 09/28/09 Page 2 of 2