Allia v. Timothy Percy Bussman

Background

The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment against both remaining defendants and a motion to strike Defendant Humboldt Heals’ answer. They argued that Humboldt Heals was an unrepresented corporation or entity. The plaintiffs also requested entry of default judgment against Humboldt Heals.

Humboldt Heals’ opposition was due September 16, 2025, but it filed no opposition. No one appeared for Humboldt Heals at the October 21, 2025 hearing. The court had previously granted Amelia Burroughs’ motion to withdraw as Humboldt Heals’ counsel. Since that withdrawal, no lawyer had appeared for Humboldt Heals.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that Humboldt Heals is a limited liability company and therefore cannot appear in federal court except through counsel. The court relied on federal precedent and Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 3-9(b), which provides that a corporation, unincorporated association, partnership, or other such entity may appear only through a member of the court’s bar.

Because Humboldt Heals had no counsel, the court found that striking its answer and entering default were appropriate. The court noted that Humboldt Heals could not defend itself in the case without counsel.

Ruling

Judge Robert M. Illman granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike Humboldt Heals’ answer, and the answer was stricken. The court directed the clerk to enter default as to Humboldt Heals. The court did not enter default judgment in this order. Instead, it directed the plaintiffs to file a motion for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) within 60 days after the clerk enters default. The opinion does not state how the court ruled on the plaintiffs’ separate motion for summary judgment.