Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-56/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

)

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 02-6583 AWI SMS

ORDER CONTINUING MOTION

TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS

ESTATES IN EAGLE RIDGE,

LLLP, JAMES, C. BATEMAN

PETROLEUM SERVICES, DBA

SEMCO, AND ENVIRO-SAFE INC.,

TO JULY 9, 2007

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint by Estates in Eagle Ridge, LLP,

James C. Bateman Petroleum Services, DBA Semco, and Enviro-Safe, Inc. (collectively “Entity

Plaintiffs”), or strike their claims from the complaint. The motion to dismiss is set for hearing

on June 4, 2007. In their motion, Defendants point out that Entity Plaintiffs cannot appear in

this action without counsel, and Entity Plaintiffs are not currently represented by an attorney. 

Accordingly, Defendants contend that the court must dismiss the complaint as to Entity Plaintiffs

or, in the alternative, strike Entity Plaintiffs’ claims. 

The background and litigious history of this action is well know to the court and to the

parties and need not be recited in this order. Of relevance to Defendants’ pending motion, is the

fact that on April 18, 2007, the court granted Attorney Anthony P. Capozzi’s motion to withdraw

as attorney of record. This order left all Plaintiffs, including Entity Plaintiffs, without counsel. 

While Plaintiff Terry Hamilton and Plaintiff Sharon Hamilton have proceeded in this action in

pro se, Entity Plaintiffs cannot represent themselves and must appear through counsel. See

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 623 Filed 05/30/07 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

Local Rule 83-183(a). Because neither Attorney Capozzi’s motion nor any other brief filed

concerning Attorney Capozzi’s motion addressed the ramifications of Attorney Capozzi’s

withdrawal on Entity Defendants, this court’s order allowing Attorney Capozzi to withdraw did

not address the special concerns raised by the withdrawal of an attorney who is representing an

entity. As such, this court finds that Entity Defendants should be given reasonable time to

obtain new counsel before they are dismissed from this action. In an April 13, 2007

Declaration, Plaintiff Terry Hamilton and Plaintiff Sharon Hamilton indicated that it would take

approximately 60 days to obtain new counsel for Plaintiffs. Thus, the court will continue

Defendants’ motion to give Entity Plaintiffs well over this time frame in which to obtain new

counsel.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint by Entity

Plaintiffs or, in the alternative, strike, currently set for June 4, 2007, is

VACATED and no party shall appear;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint by Entity Plaintiffs or, in the

alternative, strike, SHALL BE HEARD on July 9, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. in

Courtroom Two; and

3. Entity Plaintiffs are FOREWARNED that if Entity Plaintiffs are not

represented by counsel as of July 9, 2007, this court will grant Defendants’

motion and dismiss Entity Plaintiffs from this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 623 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 2