ThermoLife International LLC v. BPI Sports LLC

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Thermo Life International LLC, et al., ) No. CV-20-02091-PHX-SPL ) ) 10 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER vs. ) ) ) BPI Sports LLC, ) ) 13 Defendant. ) ) 14 ) 15 On April 8, 2022, Plaintiffs ThermoLife International, LLC (“ThermoLife”) and MuscleBeach Nutrition, LLC (“MuscleBeach Nutrition”) filed a Second Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs (Doc. 56).1 In addition to indicating that Counsel’s attorney-client relationship with Plaintiffs had been terminated and that withdrawal was in order,2 the Motion further noted that Plaintiffs had identified replacement counsel who is apparently “located out of state and is currently preparing his pro hac application.” (Doc.

21 56 at 2). Plaintiffs also indicated that “they intend to request a 30-day extension to the deadlines to file responses to the two motions currently pending before the Court [Dkt.##52-53].” (Id.).

25 1 The Court is also in receipt of Defendant’s Notice of Non-Opposition (Doc. 59).

The Court has considered the Notice and declines to rule on the pending motions at this time.

27 2 On April 11, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs (Doc. 57).

1 The Court has not yet received any pro hac application from Plaintiffs’ replacement 2} counsel, nor has counsel otherwise appeared for Plaintiffs in this action.* In light of □ Counsel’s withdrawal, the Court will grant Plaintiffs an extension to retain counsel and file responses to the pending Motion for Extension (Doc. 52) and Motion for Attorney Fees 5| (Doc. 53). The failure to respond to these motions may be treated as consent to the granting 6| of the motions. See LRCiv. 7.2(i).

7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall have until no later than May 5, 2022 to, | first, obtain counsel and for said counsel to appear in this matter and, second, respond to | the two motions currently pending before the Court (Docs. 52 & 53). If Plaintiffs fail to do | so, the Court advises Plaintiffs that it will treat both pending motions as unopposed.

12 Dated this 21st day of April, 2022.

14 Honorable Steven P. L¢éan 15 United States District didge 24 > As stated in this Court’s previous two Orders (Docs. 55 & 57), ThermoLife and | MuscleBeach Nutrition, as entities, cannot appear pro se in this matter. See In re Am. W.

Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Corporations and other unincorporated | associations must appear in court through an attorney.”); Calzada-Zubiria v. Empyrean W.

97 | LLC, No. CV-14-02106-PHX-DJH, 2014 WL 12672636, at *1 (D. Ariz. Dec. 16, 2014) (“[T]he Court is compelled to clarify that LLCs, in contrast to individuals, may not appear 28 % pro se.”).