Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 11, 2022

Youlin Wang v. Forensic Professional Group USA, Inc.

Judge
Beth Freeman
Docket
5:20-cv-08033
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Youlin Wang v. Richard Kahn, Judge Freeman granted counsel’s withdrawal motion and ordered a response on why Forensic Professionals Group, USA, Inc.’s answer should be stricken.

Who this affects

The order directly affects Respondents Richard Kahn and Forensic Professionals Group, USA, Inc., particularly FGP’s ability to continue defending itself without counsel. It also concerns Douglas E. Klein’s withdrawal as their lawyer and requires a written response from the parties.

What happened

Youlin Wang v. Richard Kahn, et al. concerns Respondents Richard Kahn and Forensic Professionals Group, USA, Inc. (FGP). Douglas E. Klein had represented them.

The court granted Klein’s motion to withdraw as counsel. Kahn said he intended to represent himself, while FGP indicated through Kahn that it did not intend to obtain a lawyer. The court noted that a corporation cannot represent itself.

The court ordered the parties to explain in writing by August 25, 2022, why FGP’s answer should not be stricken. Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order on August 11, 2022.

The detailed version

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

Case
Youlin Wang v. Forensic Professional Group USA, Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-08033
Judge
Beth Freeman
Date
Aug. 11, 2022

Background

Douglas E. Klein represented Respondents Richard Kahn and Forensic Professionals Group, USA, Inc. (FGP). On August 11, 2022, the court heard and granted Klein’s motion to withdraw as their counsel.

At the hearing, Kahn told the court that he intended to represent himself. Kahn also stated, as FGP’s agent, that FGP did not intend to obtain counsel. The court explained that a corporation cannot represent itself.

Order

The court ordered the parties to show cause—that is, to explain in writing—why FGP’s answer, identified as ECF No. 91, should not be stricken as to FGP. The written response was due before August 25, 2022.

The order granted Klein’s motion to withdraw and issued an order to show cause; it did not state that FGP’s answer had already been stricken. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.