Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 19, 2024

Nob Hill Catering, Inc. v. Back of the House LLC

Judge
Kandis Westmore
Docket
4:22-cv-05197
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureSummary Judgment
In one sentence

In Nob Hill Catering v. Back of the House, Judge Westmore ordered the company to explain why its answer should not be stricken and default entered.

Who this affects

Back of the House LLC was required to obtain counsel, respond to the order to show cause, and address the pending summary-judgment motion. Former defense counsel was ordered to serve the order and file proof of service.

What happened

In Nob Hill Catering, Inc. v. Back of the House LLC, the court had allowed the defendant’s law firm to withdraw and gave the company until November 18, 2024, to obtain a new lawyer. No new lawyer timely filed an appearance.

The court ordered the defendant to explain by November 29 why its answer should not be removed and a default entered against it. The defendant’s new lawyer also had to file an appearance and respond to the pending summary-judgment motion or request more time through an administrative motion.

Judge Kandis Westmore warned that failing to respond could lead to the answer being stricken and default being entered, while failing to oppose the summary-judgment motion could result in that motion being granted as unopposed. The court did not yet strike the answer, enter default, or decide the summary-judgment motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Nob Hill Catering, Inc. v. Back of the House LLC · No. 4:22-cv-05197
Judge
Kandis Westmore
Date
Nov. 19, 2024

Background

On September 19, 2024, the court granted Caldarelli Hejmanowski Page & Leer LLP’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Back of the House LLC. The court gave the defendant until November 18, 2024, to obtain new counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance. No timely notice of appearance was filed.

The court had previously warned that failing to obtain new counsel or comply with court orders could result in the answer being stricken and a default judgment being entered. The order explains that corporations may appear in court only through an attorney and cites authority allowing a court to strike a corporation’s answer and enter default when the corporation fails to retain counsel.

Order

The court issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring the defendant to explain why a specified action should not be taken. By November 29, 2024, Back of the House LLC had to explain why its Answer should not be stricken and default entered against it for failing to obtain new counsel by the November 18 deadline.

By the same deadline, the defendant’s new counsel had to file a notice of appearance and either respond to the pending motion for summary judgment or file a motion seeking administrative relief from the deadline. The court warned that failure to respond to the order to show cause could result in the Answer being stricken and the Clerk being directed to enter default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). It separately warned that failing to oppose the summary-judgment motion or seek administrative relief would result in the motion being granted as unopposed and judgment being entered against the defendant.

The court also ordered former defense counsel to immediately serve the order on the defendant and file a certificate of service. The order did not itself strike the Answer, enter default, or decide the pending summary-judgment motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.