Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 4, 2022

SALOOJAS, INC. v. Aetna Health of California, Inc.

Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Docket
3:22-cv-01696
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In SALOOJAS v. Aetna, Judge Corley ordered the corporation to obtain counsel, stayed dismissal-motion briefing, and warned of possible dismissal.

Who this affects

SALOOJAS, INC., which was required to obtain representation by a lawyer; AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, INC., whose motion-to-dismiss briefing and hearing were paused.

What happened

SALOOJAS, INC. v. AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, INC. was removed to federal court by Aetna on March 16, 2022. The plaintiff, a corporation, was proceeding without a lawyer, and Aetna had filed a motion to dismiss.

The court told Saloojas that a corporation must be represented by a licensed lawyer in federal court. It ordered a lawyer to appear for Saloojas by May 5, 2022, and said the complaint may be dismissed without prejudice if no lawyer appeared.

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley also paused briefing on Aetna’s motion to dismiss and canceled the April 28 hearing. The court said it would set new briefing deadlines after May 5.

The detailed version

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

Case
SALOOJAS, INC. v. Aetna Health of California, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-01696
Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Date
Apr. 4, 2022

Background

Aetna removed the case to federal court on March 16, 2022. Aetna then filed a motion to dismiss. Saloojas, a corporation, was proceeding without a lawyer, and the order states that it appeared to have filed its state-court complaint without a lawyer.

Representation Requirement

The court advised Saloojas that a corporation must be represented by a licensed lawyer in federal court. The court ordered that a lawyer appear for Saloojas on or before May 5, 2022. The order also identified the Northern District’s Legal Help Center as a possible source of free assistance.

Effect on the Case

The court warned that it may dismiss Saloojas’s complaint without prejudice if no lawyer appeared by May 5. The order did not dismiss the complaint. It stayed, or paused, briefing on Aetna’s motion to dismiss and canceled the April 28 hearing. The court stated that it would reset the deadlines for Saloojas to oppose the motion and for Aetna to reply after May 5.

Disposition

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley issued an order requiring counsel to appear for Saloojas, staying briefing on the motion to dismiss, and vacating the scheduled hearing. The opinion does not decide the merits of the underlying claims or the motion to dismiss.

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.