BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN…
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al. v. A1 ABATEMENT GROUP, INC.
- Donna Ryu
- 3:25-cv-01930
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Board of Trustees v. A1 Abatement, Judge Ryu ordered A1 Abatement to explain its lack of counsel and vacated the hearing.
A1 Abatement Group, Inc. must respond about its lack of counsel; the plaintiffs’ pending default-judgment motion may be affected if the defendant does not respond.
What happened
In Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. A1 Abatement Group, Inc., the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment and the defendant’s motion to set aside default judgment were pending.
The court had previously ordered A1 Abatement Group, Inc. to obtain a lawyer because corporations cannot represent themselves in court. No lawyer had appeared, so the court ordered the company to explain why its motion should not be denied and its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion should not be stricken.
Judge Donna M. Ryu vacated the October 23, 2025 hearing and gave the defendant until November 4, 2025, to respond. The court warned that failing to respond could result in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment and denying the defendant’s motion.
The detailed version
- BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN… · No. 3:25-cv-01930
- Donna Ryu
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs’ July 2, 2025 motion for default judgment and A1 Abatement Group, Inc.’s August 22, 2025 motion to set aside default judgment were pending. A hearing on both motions had been scheduled for October 23, 2025. A1 Abatement filed its motion on its own behalf.
The court had previously explained that a corporation cannot represent itself in the action and ordered A1 Abatement to retain counsel and have counsel enter an appearance by September 26, 2025. After no attorney appeared, the court ordered the defendant to report on its efforts to retain counsel and later extended the deadline to October 17, 2025. The opinion states that no counsel had appeared and that the defendant had been given sufficient time to find an attorney.
Order
The court ordered A1 Abatement to file, by November 4, 2025, a written response showing why its motion to set aside default judgment should not be denied because it had not appeared through an attorney, and why its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment should not be stricken for the same reason. The court warned that failing to respond on time may result in the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment being granted and the defendant’s motion to set aside default judgment being denied.
Judge Donna M. Ryu vacated the October 23, 2025 hearing. The opinion does not decide either pending motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.