Saucedo v. Goode
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-08314
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Saucedo v. Goode, Judge Tigar ordered Pan Geo Construction to obtain counsel or explain why it should remain a plaintiff.
Pan Geo Construction, Inc., the corporation named as an additional plaintiff.
What happened
Saucedo v. Goode began when Jorge Saucedo filed the case on October 26, 2021. He later filed an amended complaint that attempted to add Pan Geo Construction, Inc. as a plaintiff.
The court stated that a corporation cannot appear in federal court without a lawyer. It therefore required Pan Geo Construction either to have a lawyer enter the case or to explain why it should not be dismissed as a plaintiff.
Judge Tigar gave counsel until May 20, 2022, to enter an appearance. If Pan Geo had not obtained counsel, its written response was due May 31, 2022; the court also said it would address the issue at the June 7, 2022 case-management conference.
The detailed version
- Saucedo v. Goode · No. 4:21-cv-08314
- Jon Tigar
- Mar. 29, 2022
Background
Jorge Saucedo filed this action on October 26, 2021. On February 17, 2022, he filed an amended complaint that purported to name Pan Geo Construction, Inc., a California corporation, as an additional plaintiff.
Issue
The court stated that a corporation cannot appear in federal court except through counsel, citing Reading International, Inc. v. Malulani Group, Ltd., 814 F.3d 1046, 1053 (9th Cir. 2016). The order concerned Pan Geo Construction's ability to remain a plaintiff and did not decide the underlying claims.
Order
The court ordered that either counsel for Pan Geo Construction enter an appearance by May 20, 2022, or Pan Geo Construction show cause—explain why—it should not be dismissed as a plaintiff. Unless Pan Geo Construction had obtained counsel, a written response to the order to show cause was due May 31, 2022. The court stated that it would address the issue further at the case-management conference scheduled for June 7, 2022. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.