1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLLETTE STARK, Case No.: 19-CV-1897-CAB-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

14 FUSION CONSULTING SERVICES #2, LLC, [Doc. No. 9] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Martin S. Heinman, a non-lawyer who represents that he is somehow affiliated with 19 Defendant Fusion Consulting Services #2, LLC (“Fusion”), has filed a request for 20 appointment of counsel in this case. Because Heinman himself is not a party to this case, 21 he does not need counsel personally. As for Fusion, “there is no absolute right to counsel 22 in civil proceedings,” Hedges v. Resolution Tr. Corp.,

, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994), 23 and regardless, “there is no authority allowing this court to appoint counsel for a 24 corporation in a civil matter.” TI Beverage Grp. Ltd. v. S.C. Cramele Recas SA, No. LA 25 CV 06-07793-VBF,

, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014) (citations omitted); 26 see also Int’l Underwater Dive & Expls. LLC v. Boart Longyear Co., No. C16-1831-RAJ, 27

, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 10, 2017) (“The Court . . . lacks authority to 28 1 || appoint counsel to represent a corporation.”). Accordingly, the request for appointment of 2 counsel is DENIED.' 3 It is SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: November 4, 2019 <6 5 . Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ||' Fusion may only appear in this case through counsel. Failure to appear through counsel may result in a default judgment being entered against Fusion (but not against Heinman individually because he is not a 23 |! named party). However, to obtain a default judgment against Fusion, the complaint must in fact state a claim against Fusion, and Plaintiff must prove that she suffered damages as a result of any claims adequately pled in the complaint. See DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh,

(9th Cir. 2007) 25 || (affirming district court’s refusal to enter default judgment on claims not adequately pled in the complaint); Geddes v. United Fin. Grp.,

, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (“The general rule of law is 26 || that upon default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.”); Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prod., Inc.,

(C.D. Cal. 27 2003) (“Plaintiff is required to prove all damages sought in the complaint.”); see also Eitel v. McCool, 28

(9th Cir. 1986) (listing the factors to be considered on a motion for default judgment). ty