Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02140/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02140-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

5:14-cv-02140-RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS LA BOUTIQUE DU SOFTWARETECH INC.’S 

AND FUTUR-SOFT SOLUTIONS CORP.’S ANSWERS AND ENTER DEFAULT

RS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOFTWARE TECH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-02140-RMW 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

STRIKE DEFENDANTS LA BOUTIQUE 

DU SOFTWARETECH INC.’S AND 

FUTUR-SOFT SOLUTIONS CORP.’S 

ANSWERS AND ENTER DEFAULT

Re: Dkt. No. 89

On September 16, 2015, plaintiff Adobe Systems Inc. filed a motion to strike the answers 

of defendants La Boutique Du Softwaretech, Inc., doing business as Software Tech and Software 

Tech Store, and defendant Futur-Soft Solutions Corporation (collectively “corporate defendants”). 

Dkt. No. 89. Adobe further requests that default be entered against the corporate defendants 

because the corporate defendants are no longer represented by counsel. Id. Defendants did not file 

an opposition to Adobe’s motion. The court has considered Adobe’s motion as well as the 

pleadings and all papers on file in this matter. For the reasons stated below, the court hereby 

GRANTS Adobe’s motion.

I. ANALYSIS

A corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. To this effect, 

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 100 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 3
2

5:14-cv-02140-RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS LA BOUTIQUE DU SOFTWARETECH INC.’S 

AND FUTUR-SOFT SOLUTIONS CORP.’S ANSWERS AND ENTER DEFAULT

RS

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

corporations and other business entities cannot represent themselves, or be represented by a pro se 

non-attorney, in federal court. Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council,

506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993). A court may enter default against a corporation that fails to retain 

counsel. U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming 

default judgment against corporation that failed to retain counsel despite court order). 

In this case, at the time the corporate defendants filed their answers to Adobe’s First 

Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 54, all of the defendants were represented by Andrew D. Winghart, 

Esq. See Dkt. Nos. 56, 57. On May 14, 2015, Allan Gabriel, Esq., also entered an appearance on 

behalf of the defendants. Dkt. No. 63. Jonathan Giroux, Esq., applied for admission pro hac vice 

as an attorney for defendants on June 3, 2015, Dkt. No. 67, and the court granted this application 

on July 2, 2015, Dkt. No. 74.

On July 31, 2015, defendants filed a Notice of Change in Counsel, withdrawing Jonathan 

Giroux, Esq., as counsel of record for defendants. Dkt. No. 80. Defendants filed a subsequent 

Notice of Change in Counsel, withdrawing Allan Gabriel, Esq., as counsel of record, on August 

12, 2015. Dkt. No. 83.

Defendants’ sole remaining counsel, Andrew D. Winghart, Esq., then filed a Request for 

Approval of Withdrawal of Counsel Under Local Rule 11-5 on August 21, 2015. Dkt. No. 85. The 

court conditionally granted the withdrawal of Mr. Winghart subject to his filing of a declaration no 

later than September 4, 2015, (1) identifying the last known addresses of all defendants; (2)

certifying that he had advised the corporate defendants’ principal (and co-defendant) Pierre 

Francis that corporations are prohibited from representing themselves in federal court; and (3) 

certifying that he had informed all defendants of the evidentiary hearing on sanctions in this matter 

scheduled for September 18, 2015. Dkt. No. 87. On September 2, 2015, Mr. Winghart filed the 

requested declaration and was consequently withdrawn as counsel of record. Dkt. No. 88. 

To date, no new counsel has entered an appearance on behalf of the corporate defendants 

or defendant Pierre Francis. Accordingly, the court finds that default should be entered against the 

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 100 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 3
3

5:14-cv-02140-RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS LA BOUTIQUE DU SOFTWARETECH INC.’S 

AND FUTUR-SOFT SOLUTIONS CORP.’S ANSWERS AND ENTER DEFAULT

RS

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

corporate defendants.

II. ORDER

For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ordered that:

The Answer of Defendant La Boutique du Softwaretech Inc. filed as Docket Number 56 is 

hereby stricken from the record.

Defendant Futur-Soft Solutions Corporation shall be stricken from the joint Answer filed 

with Defendant Pierre Francis as Docket Number 57.

Default is hereby entered against Defendants La Boutique du Softwaretech Inc. and FuturSoft Solutions Corporation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2015

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 100 Filed 11/10/15 Page 3 of 3