District Council 16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Herron…
District Council 16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Herron Painting Co.
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:23-cv-00458
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In District Council 16 v. Herron Painting Co., Judge Hixson ordered plaintiffs to request entry of default against corporate defendants after they failed to retain counsel.
The order directly affected the corporate defendants identified by the court and required the plaintiffs to request entry of default against them. It also set deadlines for all parties regarding case management.
What happened
District Council 16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Herron Painting Co. concerns defendants whose lawyer was allowed to withdraw. The court gave the corporate defendants deadlines to find replacement counsel, but they did not appear or retain counsel by the extended deadline.
The court ruled that entry of default was appropriate against the corporate defendants. It ordered the plaintiffs to file a request for entry of default by June 24, 2024. The order did not itself enter default judgment.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson also scheduled a further case-management conference for July 18, 2024, and ordered the parties to file an updated joint case-management statement. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- District Council 16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Herron… · No. 3:23-cv-00458
- Thomas Hixson
- June 10, 2024
Background
Littler Mendelson, P.C. had represented Herron Painting Co., Kevin Herron individually and doing business as Herron Painting Co., Herron Painting, Inc., and Dora Herron. On April 19, 2024, the court granted the lawyer's motion to withdraw.
Because corporations generally may not appear in federal court without counsel, the court gave the corporate entities until May 17, 2024, to obtain substitute counsel. After the defendants did not make a subsequent appearance, the court extended that deadline to June 7, 2024. The court warned that failing to retain substitute counsel could result in entry of default judgment.
Ruling
The court found that entry of default was appropriate. It ordered the plaintiffs to file a request for entry of default as to the corporate defendants by June 24, 2024. The order directed a request for entry of default; it did not enter default judgment.
Further proceedings
The court scheduled a further case-management conference for July 18, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. It ordered the parties to file an updated joint case-management statement by July 11, 2024. The order did not resolve the merits of the plaintiffs' claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.