Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01092/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01092-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

08cv1092

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOVA RANGER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATTERSON DENTAL SUPPLY, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv1092 L(NLS)

ORDER RE: “ANSWER” FILED BY

SPRING HEALTH PRODUCTS, INC.

[doc. #15]

On November 12, 2008, defendant Spring Health Products, Inc. filed what is designated as an

“Answer for patent infringement” in this action. There are two problems with this filing. First, the

document is not an answer to the complaint. (See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.) Instead, the

document sets forth in its entirety: “Defendant alleges: Alexander Lieb (Owner) will represent himself

pro se.” This is not a response to a pleading that states “in short and plain terms its defenses to each

claim asserted against it,” and admits or denies the “allegations asserted against it by an opposing

party.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(b)(1)(A) and (B). Accordingly, the Court construes Spring Health Products

“answer” as a notice of intent to proceed in pro se and the docket shall reflect this change of description. 

Second, Alexander Lieb is not a defendant in this action. Rather, Mr. Lieb’s business, Spring

Health Products, Inc., is the defendant. Because Spring Health Products, Inc. is a corporation or

business entity, it must be represented by counsel and cannot defend this action in pro se. Rowland v.

Case 3:08-cv-01092-L-NLS Document 16 Filed 11/13/08 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 08cv1092

Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202-03 (1993); United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d

1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993); Gamet v. Blanchard, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1276, 1284 n.5 (2001); accord CIV.

LOC. R. 83.3k. Therefore, in order for Spring Health Products, Inc. to defend this action, it must obtain

counsel promptly. The Court will allow Spring Health Products, Inc. 30 days from the file-stamped date

of this Order to have counsel enter an appearance on its behalf. If counsel makes an appearance,

Spring Health Products, Inc. shall file an answer or other responsive pleading within 10 days of

that appearance. A default may not be taken against Spring Health Products, Inc. unless

defendant does not comply within the time provided in this Order. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED defendant Spring Health Products’ “answer”

shall be construed as a notice on the Court’s docket. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Spring

Health Products, Inc. shall file a notice of appearance of counsel within 30 days of the filing of

this Order and thereafter shall answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff’s complaint within 10

days of the filing of the notice of appearance of counsel. Failure to comply with the Court’s

Order may result in entry of default against defendant Spring Health Products, Inc.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 13, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 

 

Case 3:08-cv-01092-L-NLS Document 16 Filed 11/13/08 Page 2 of 2