Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01881/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01881-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

LINEA HINGANO, CASE NO. CV F 09-1881 LJO DLB

Plaintiff, ORDER TO ENTER DEFAULT

vs.

CHANNING & ASSOCIATES,

LLC,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

On November 25, 2009, defendant Channing & Associates, LLC (“Channing”) filed

correspondence which this Court construes as an answer to plaintiff Linea Hingano’s complaint alleging

that Channing engaged in prohibited debt collection practices. The correspondence is signed by “A

Terry Registered Agent.” There is no indication that an attorney represents Channing. Channing is not

an individual who represents himself/herself and is a corporation, according to the complaint.

This Court’s December 7, 2009 order (“December 7 order”):

1. Struck Channing’s correspondence filed on November 25, 2009 as an answer to the

complaint;

2. Ordered Channing, no later than December 31, 2009, to secure representation of licensed

counsel and to appear in this action through licensed counsel; and

3. Admonished Channing that this Court will enter default against Channing unless

1

Case 1:09-cv-01881-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 4
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

Channing, no later than December 31, 2009, secures representation of licensed counsel

and appears in this action through licensed counsel.

Channing disobeyed the December 7 order and failed to secure representation and appearance

by counsel.

DISCUSSION

Absence Of Counsel For Channing

As noted in the December 7 order, Channing fails to defend this action through licensed counsel. 

A “corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. California

Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721 (1993); United States v. High Country

Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9 Cir. 1993); see Osborn v. President of Bank of United th

States, 9 Wheat. 738, 829, 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824); Turner v. American Bar Ass’n, 407 F.Supp. 451, 476

(N.D. Tex. 1975) (citing the “long line of cases” from 1824 to the present holding that a corporation may

only be represented by licensed counsel). All artificial entities must appear in federal court through

counsel. Rowland, 506 U.S. at 202, 113 S.Ct. at 721. This Court’s Local Rule 183(a) provides: “A

corporation or other entity may appear only by an attorney.”

Channing is not entitled to proceed without representation and appearance by licensed counsel.

Failure To Comply With Order

In blatant disobedience of the December 7 order and this Court’s Local Rule 183(a), Channing

attempts to defend this action without licensed counsel. This Court’s Local Rule 11-110 provides: 

“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be

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

Court.” District courts have inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power

they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal of a case.” Thompson v.

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). For instance, “where a corporation repeatedly fails

to appear by counsel, a default judgment may be entered against it pursuant to Rule 55.” Grace v. Bank

Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y., 443 F.3d 180, 192 (2 Cir. 2006). In addition, a court may dismiss an action, nd

with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

2

Case 1:09-cv-01881-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 01/04/10 Page 2 of 4
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

F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment

of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply

with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to complywith court order); Henderson

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply

with local rules). 

In determining whether to enter default or to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order

or to comply with local rules, a court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice

to the plaintiff, in the case of default, or to the defendant, in the case of dismissal; (4) the public policy

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963

F.2d at 1260-1261; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

In this case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and

the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of default in that Channing has failed to

advance this action with its unexplained failure to secured licensed counsel to defend Channing. The

third factor -- risk of prejudice to plaintiff -- also weighs in favor of default, since a presumption of

injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is

greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of default discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a

party that its failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d

at 1424. The December 7 order admonished Channing that “this Court will enter default against

Channing unless Channing, no later than December 31, 2009, secures representation of licensed counsel

and appears in this action through licensed counsel.” Thus, Channing received adequate warning that

default would result from noncompliance with this Court’s order and failure to secure counsel to

represent and appear for Channing. Quite simply, Channing has failed to complywith this Court’s order

and Local Rule to appear though licensed counsel.

3

Case 1:09-cv-01881-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 01/04/10 Page 3 of 4
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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court ENTERS default against Channing: (1) on grounds

that Channing improperly attempts to defend in this action without licensed counsel; and (2) pursuant

to Local Rule 110 for Channing’s failure to comply with this Court’s order and Local Rule regarding

representation by counsel and to defend this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 1:09-cv-01881-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 01/04/10 Page 4 of 4