1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREN GILBERT, No. 2:21–cv–1966–MCE–CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF Nos. 4, 5) 14 SHOP & SAVE, INC., d/b/a RIO LINDA LIQUOR; JATINDER SINGH, 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On October 22, 2021, plaintiff (through counsel) filed this action under the Americans 19 with Disabilities Act, and a summons and case initiating documents were issued. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) 20 The complaint names two defendants: Shop & Save, Inc., and Jatinder Singh. (ECF No. 1 21 at 1-2.) On November 22, 2021, defendant Singh filed a one-page handwritten motion 22 acknowledging ownership of Shop & Save and requesting an extension of time to “figure this 23 out.” (ECF No. 4.) The District Judge assigned to the case then referred the motion and “all 24 other pretrial scheduling and proceedings” to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21), 25 which governs cases in this court in which one or more parties are representing themselves 26 without an attorney. (ECF No. 5.) On November 30, 2021, plaintiff filed returns of service 27 reflecting that both defendants were served with the summons and complaint on November 5, 28 2021. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) 1 Although defendant Singh’s motion does not specify what deadline defendant seeks to 2 have extended, the filing of these proofs of service and the very early stage of the case indicates 3 that defendant is requesting an extension of time to respond to the complaint. Under the Federal 4 Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants’ answers to the complaint were due by November 26, 5 2021—that is, 21 days after service of the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). In the 6 present motion filed several days before that deadline, defendant Singh proposes an extension of 7 30 to 45 days to accommodate the high business volume experienced during the holiday season 8 (ECF No. 4), and the undersigned finds this request reasonable.1 Defendant Singh therefore shall 9 have until Monday, January 10, 2022, to respond to the complaint. 10 This extension applies only to defendant Singh, not to co-defendant Shop & Save, which 11 has yet to appear in this litigation and has not requested a similar extension of time. Defendant 12 Shop & Save, a corporation, is a separate legal entity and can only appear in court through a 13 licensed attorney. See Local Rule 183(a) (stating in relevant part that “a corporation or other 14 entity may appear [in court] only by an attorney”); Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506

, 202 (1993) (a “corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel”); 16 D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc.,

, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is a 17 longstanding rule that corporations must appear in court through an attorney.” (cleaned up)). An 18 unrepresented corporation is thus subject to the entry of default and default judgment. See Emp. 19 Painters’ Trust v. Ethan Enters., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2007). Defendant Singh, as 20 Shop & Save’s owner, is cautioned that an attorney will need to be retained for Shop & Save to 21 defend itself in court if this case continues. 22 Finally, the court recognizes defendant Singh’s request for court-assisted settlement of 23 this case. The court will gladly coordinate a settlement conference with a magistrate judge of this 24 court once all defendants have entered an appearance. In the meantime, the parties are free to

25 1 Defendant’s motion constitutes an ex parte request, meaning it was made without notice to, or consent of, the opposing party. Normally, such ex parte applications for extension of time are not 26 granted, unless the applicant explains why they were unable to obtain the other party’s agreement 27 to the proposed extension. See Local Rule 144(a), (c). In light of defendant Singh’s self- represented status and the interest in allowing the case to be resolved on its merits, however, the 28 court finds it appropriate to grant the requested extension as presented. 1 | continue to negotiate in good faith to settle the matter out of court. 2 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Defendant Jatinder Singh’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 4) is 4 GRANTED. Defendant Singh shall respond to the complaint no later than 5 January 10, 2022; 6 2. The Clerk of Court is instructed to issue the undersigned’s Civil New Case Documents 7 for this case (although summonses need not be reissued); and 8 3. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of those new case documents on defendants. 9 | Dated: December 1, 2021 aie } ft | / } a 4 10 CAROLYN DELANEY 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 19.gilb.1966 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28