Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03839/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03839-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Faraday's Inc.
Plaintiff
Spartan Wear Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

FARADAY'S INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPARTAN WEAR INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-03839-DMR 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

On July 2, 2019, Plaintiff Faraday’s Inc. filed a complaint and an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Docket Nos. 1, 2.] The case was filed by Antonio Matos, who does not 

appear to be a lawyer, and who purports to represent Faraday’s Inc. The financial affidavit filed in 

support of the IFP appears to list Matos’s personal financial information. [Docket No. 2.]

There are two problems with Plaintiff’s filings. First, an artificial entity like a corporation 

must be represented by a licensed attorney. Civil Local Rule 3-9(b) (“A corporation, unincorporated 

association, partnership or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this 

Court.”); see also Guifu Li v. A Perfect Day Franchise, Inc., No. 10-cv-01189-LHK, 2012 WL 

2236752, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2012) (“[W]hile pro se litigants can represent themselves, they 

cannot represent corporations, companies or other artificial entities.”) Here, Matos is attempting to 

represent Faraday’s Inc., a corporation. Nothing in the complaint indicates that Matos is an attorney, 

that he is licensed to practice before this court, or that he is representing Faraday’s Inc. in his 

capacity as an attorney. Accordingly, Matos may not represent Faraday’s Inc. No other person 

claims to be counsel of record for Faraday’s Inc. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims may not proceed 

because as a corporation, Plaintiff can only go forward if it is represented by qualified counsel.

The second problem is that the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only applies to natural persons. 

Rowland v. California Mens Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 198-207 (1993)

Case 4:19-cv-03839-DMR Document 7 Filed 07/11/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(refusing to extend the language of the IFP statute to artificial entities). Accordingly, corporations 

and other artificial entities like Plaintiff may not apply for a fee reduction under section 1915.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is ordered to respond in writing to explain why this case 

should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Local Rule 3-9(b) and section 1915. Plaintiff’s 

response is due by July 26, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2019

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:19-cv-03839-DMR Document 7 Filed 07/11/19 Page 2 of 2