Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 5, 2020

Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern…

Full caption

Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Stump & Sons, Inc.

Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Docket
3:20-cv-01791
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
ErisaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Board of Trustees v. Stump & Sons, Judge Corley ordered the corporation to obtain a lawyer or face possible default proceedings.

Who this affects

Stump & Sons, Inc., which was required to obtain licensed counsel to continue defending the case; the plaintiffs’ underlying claim was not decided.

What happened

Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Stump & Sons, Inc. is an employee-benefits case. The plaintiffs alleged that Stump & Sons failed to make required monthly contributions under a collective bargaining agreement.

Stump & Sons filed an answer through Joann Morgan, who said the company could not afford a lawyer. The court explained that a corporation may appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney and ordered the company to have counsel enter an appearance by June 25, 2020.

If no lawyer appeared by June 26, 2020, the court said it would consider the plaintiffs’ request for entry of default. Judge Corley did not decide the underlying contribution dispute in this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern… · No. 3:20-cv-01791
Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Date
June 5, 2020

Background

The plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California and others, brought an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). They alleged that Stump & Sons, Inc. breached a collective bargaining agreement requiring it to make monthly employee fringe-benefit contributions to trust funds administered by the plaintiffs.

Representation issue

Stump & Sons filed an answer through Joann Morgan, who indicated that the company could not afford an attorney. The court cited the Northern District of California’s local rule and Supreme Court precedent stating that a corporation may appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney. A non-attorney therefore could not represent Stump & Sons in this case.

Order

The court ordered Stump & Sons to obtain counsel and have an attorney appear on its behalf by June 25, 2020. The court also provided contact information for the Legal Help Center, which offers free assistance. If no attorney appeared by June 26, 2020, the court stated that it would consider the plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default, explaining that default was the appropriate remedy for an unrepresented corporation.

The order did not enter default, decide the plaintiffs’ ERISA claim, or determine whether Stump & Sons owed the alleged contributions. It was an order addressing the corporation’s representation in the litigation.

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.