1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ANTHONY J. OLIVER, Case No. 1:24-cv-00895 JLT BAM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE LEGALESE ATTORNEY 11 v. SERVICE, LLC’S ANSWER; AND DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION 12 ABC LEGAL SERVICES, L.L.C., et al., WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 Defendants. (Docs 71, 96) 14 15 Anthony J. Oliver, a prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on July 29, 16 2024. (Doc. 1.) He filed the operative first amended complaint on August 9, 2024. (Doc. 11.) On 17 January 21, 2025, he filed a notice of dismissal attempting to voluntarily dismiss without 18 prejudice all remaining claims against all remaining defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). That rule permits voluntary dismissal only “before the opposing party 20 serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Id. Because two of the still- 21 remaining parties have filed answers, automatic dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is not 22 immediately effective and further analysis is required. 23 As a threshold matter, Legalese Attorney Service, LLC, filed a pro se answer on 24 September 18, 2024. (Doc. 30.) However, because Legalese is a corporate entity, it may not 25 proceed pro se. Local Rule. 183(a); see Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men’s 26 Advisory Council,

, 201–02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two 27 centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel 28 . . . . [T]hat rule applies equally to all artificial entities.”); see also Jackal of Trades, LLC v. 1 | Bethel Church, No. 2:23-CV-00142-DJC-KJN (PS),

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 31, 2 | 2023). This defect was pointed out to Legalese in Plaintiff's motion to strike (Doc. 71), which 3 | was served on Legalese by U.S. Mail on November 20, 2024. (See Doc. 92 at 2). As of the date of 4 | this Order, Legalese has not responded to the motion to strike or otherwise communicated with 5 | the Court, and no attorney has entered an appearance on its behalf. Plaintiff's motion to strike 6 | (Doc. 71) Legalese’s answer is therefore GRANTED and the answer (Doc. 30) is STRICKEN. 7 | Consequently, apart from Direct Legal Support, the record now contains no answer or motion for 8 | summary judgment from Legalese or any other remaining defendant. Voluntary dismissal of all 9 | these defendants is therefore appropriate under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)Q). 10 Defendant Direct Legal Support also filed an answer on December 7, 2024, (Doc. 90), but 11 | has consented to the dismissal (Doc. 97). Therefore, dismissal of Direct Legal Support is 12 | appropriate under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)Gi). 13 To the extent there is any doubt about the effectiveness of these dismissals under the 14 | above rules, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss this entire action without prejudice under 15 | these circumstances pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which aligns with 16 | Plaintiffs original request to dismiss without prejudice. 17 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 18 For the reasons set forth above: 19 (1) Plaintiff's motion to strike Legalese’s answer (Doc. 71) is GRANTED. 20 (2) Legalese’s answer (Doc. 30) is STRICKEN. 21 (3) All remaining claims against all remaining defendants are DISMISSED 22 WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). 23 (4) The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and 24 CLOSE THIS CASE. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _January 23, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28