Whaleco Incorporated v. dltemuapp.com

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Whale co Incorporated, ) No. CV-23-02332-PHX-SPL ) ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) ) dltemuapp.com, et al., ) ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 ) 15 The Court is in receipt of non-party Roy Dawson’s “Response to Court Summons” (Doc. 24). Mr. Dawson is neither a party nor counsel or next friend to a party in this case and therefore cannot properly file documents in this matter. See Gomez v. J. MacDonald, No. ED CV 13-01367-VBF-SH, 2014 WL 4059938, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2014) (collecting cases). Although Mr. Dawson’s letter states that he wrote the letter “in response to the court summons,” (Doc. 23 at 2), it does not appear that Mr. Dawson is an attorney, and he therefore cannot represent Defendants or file documents on their behalf. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 31.2.1 Thus, Mr. Dawson’s filing is improper and will be stricken.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED that the Letter re: temu.markets by Non-Party Roy Dawson (Doc. 24) is stricken.

27 1 Defendants are all entities and are not permitted to 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.”).

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Whaleco Incorporated’s Motion to 2| Strike Defendant Roy Dawson’s Letter (Doc. 29) is denied as moot.

3 Dated this 9" day of August, 2024.

6 LIC ES