Johnson v. RATI, LLC

Background

RATI, LLC stopped participating in the case. It failed to comply with earlier orders requiring it to retain substitute counsel and show cause, meaning explain to the court, why it had not done so. The court stated that an LLC cannot proceed without counsel under the Northern District of California’s local rules.

Court’s action

The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), which permits sanctions for failing to obey a pretrial order, and Rule 37(b)(2)(A), which permits striking pleadings and entering default for that failure. The court also cited a Ninth Circuit decision approving default against a corporate defendant that failed to comply with rules requiring representation by counsel.

The court struck RATI, LLC’s answer, ECF No. 11, and instructed the clerk to enter default against the company. Default is a procedural consequence of failing to defend; it was not a decision on the merits of Scott Johnson’s claims.

Next step ordered

The court ordered Scott Johnson to file a motion for default judgment by October 2, 2020. The motion had to address the factors identified in Eitel v. McCool. Johnson also had to serve the motion on RATI, LLC and submit evidence supporting any requested costs. The opinion text includes an incomplete sentence concerning proof of costs, so the full requirements in that portion are unclear.

Disposition

The court struck RATI, LLC’s answer and ordered entry of default. It did not itself enter default judgment in this order. Judge Alex G. Tse signed the order on September 9, 2020.