The opinion
1
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5 SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7 SASA MASLIC, et al., Case No. 21-cv-02556-BLF
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
DEFENDANT EISENMANN
9 v. CORPORATION’S ANSWER SHOULD
NOT BE STRICKEN AND DEFAULT
10 ISM VUZEM D.O.O., et al., ENTERED AGAINST IT
11 Defendants.
a 12
All counsel of record for Defendant Eisenmann Corporation have withdrawn from
v 14 || representation with leave of the Court. See Orders, ECF 103, 108. “The law is clear that a
15 || corporation can be represented only by a licensed attorney.” In re Bigelow, 179 F.3d 1164, 1165
Q 16 |} (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Defendant Eisenmann Corporation is ORDERED TO SHOW
= 17 || CAUSE, in writing and within 30 days, why its answer should not be stricken and default entered
Z 18 || against it.
19 Defendant Eisenmann Corporation’s prior counsel, Frost Brown Todd LLC and Boies
20 || Schiller Flexner LLP, SHALL provide a copy of this order to Defendant Eisenmann Corporation
21 and shall file proof of service showing it did so.
22 IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24 || Dated: January 23, 2024
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
26 United States District Judge
27
28