Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00688/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00688-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On May 13, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this action. (ECF No. 1.) On June 3, 

2016, Defendant Demi Ag. Inc. filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 4.) The answer was 

signed and filed by Margarita Ortega, who states that Defendant Demi Ag. Inc. belongs to her, 

but there is no indication that she is an attorney representing Defendant Demi Ag. Inc.1 

On June 7, 2016, the Court ordered Defendant Demi Ag. Inc. to retain counsel and have 

counsel appear in the case within thirty days. (ECF No. 5.) Defendant Demi Ag. Inc., a 

California corporation, was advised that it may not appear in propria persona. To date, no 

counsel has filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Defendant Demi Ag. Inc. Further, 

Defendant Demi Ag. Inc. has not asked for an extension of time in which to comply with the 

Court’s June 7, 2016 order or filed any response to the Court’s June 7, 2016 order.

Local Rule 183 provides that “[a] corporation or other entity may appear only by an 

attorney.” See also U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 

 

1 Even if Ms. Ortega is an attorney, it may be a conflict of interest for her to represent Defendant Demi Ag. Inc. 

OCTAVIANO JUAREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RAFAEL VILLAFAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00688-DAD-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT DEMI 

AG. INC. TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ITS 

ANSWER SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN 

AUGUST 15, 2016 DEADLINE

(ECF No. 4) 

Case 1:16-cv-00688-DAD-SAB Document 12 Filed 07/13/16 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

1993) (citing Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 

194, 201–02 (1993) (recognizing that a corporation is not permitted to appear in federal courts

unless it is represented by counsel)). The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 

provide: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be 

grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized . . . within the 

inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. 

In the Court’s June 7, 2016 order, Defendant Demi Ag. Inc. was warned that failure to 

have authorized counsel appear shall lead to sanctions at the discretion of the Court, including 

but not limited to the striking of the answer of Defendant Demi Ag. Inc. and the entry of default 

against Defendant Demi Ag. Inc. As Defendant Demi Ag. Inc. has failed to comply with the 

Court’s June 7, 2016 order, Defendant Demi Ag. Inc. must show cause why its answer should 

not be stricken for its failure to comply with the Court’s June 7, 2016 order. Defendant Demi 

Ag. Inc. is warned that its failure to timely comply with the instant order will result in the Court 

striking the June 3, 2016 answer of Defendant Demi Ag. Inc. Further, Defendant Demi Ag. Inc.

is warned that failure to timely comply with this order may result in default being entered against 

it. Rule 55 provides that, “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is 

sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or 

otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Demi Ag. Inc. shall show cause

by August 15, 2016, why its answer should not be stricken for its failure to comply with the 

Court’s June 7, 2016 order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00688-DAD-SAB Document 12 Filed 07/13/16 Page 2 of 2