Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund v. Macy Automotive, Inc.
- William Alsup
- 3:18-cv-05416
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund v. Macy Automotive, Inc., Judge Westmore granted in part and denied in part a motion to strike Macy’s Pro’s answer.
Plaintiffs and Macy’s Automotive Pro’s were affected. Macy’s Pro’s answer was struck, plaintiffs were permitted to seek entry of default against it, and the scheduled case management conference was vacated.
What happened
Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund v. Macy Automotive, Inc. concerns plaintiffs’ claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against Macy Automotive, Inc. and Macy’s Automotive Pro’s. Plaintiffs argued that Macy’s Pro’s, a corporation, could not participate without a lawyer.
The court struck Macy’s Pro’s answer because the corporation had no lawyer. It also allowed plaintiffs to ask the clerk to enter default against Macy’s Pro’s. The order does not explain which portion of plaintiffs’ motion was denied.
Judge Westmore decided the matter without a hearing, granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion to strike, and vacated the scheduled case management conference.
The detailed version
- Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund v. Macy Automotive, Inc. · No. 3:18-cv-05416
- William Alsup
- Sept. 17, 2019
Background
Plaintiffs sued Macy Automotive, Inc. and Macy’s Automotive Pro’s (“Macy’s Pro’s”) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Plaintiffs moved to strike Macy’s Pro’s answer because the corporation was not represented by a lawyer and asked the clerk to enter default against it. No opposition was filed.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney. It also stated that a corporation’s answer may be struck when the corporation fails to retain counsel. The court noted that Macy’s Pro’s was a corporation without counsel and that Christina Morrison, identified as its owner, had declared that she did not intend to find another lawyer because the corporation had no money.
Ruling
The order is titled “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike.” In the body of the order, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion, struck Macy’s Pro’s answer, and allowed plaintiffs to move the clerk to enter default against Macy’s Pro’s. The opinion does not identify what portion of the motion was denied. The court also vacated the September 24, 2019 case management conference. Judge A. Westmore deemed the matter suitable for decision without a hearing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.