John Brosnan v. Gul Auto Care

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 JOHN BROSNAN, Case No. 25-cv-08078-TLT (SK) 8 Plaintiff, 9 y. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 GUL AUTO CARE, Regarding Docket No. 11 11 Defendant.

12 On January 2, 2026, Hamad Gul, proceeding pro se on behalf of Defendant Gul Auto Care 13 || (“Defendant”), filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff John Brosnan’s Complaint. (Dkt. No. 11.) The S 14 Court scheduled a motion hearing for March 16, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. via Public Zoom Webinar.

3 15 || (Dkt. No. 13.)

16 Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 3-9(b), “[a] corporation, 17. || unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only through a member of 18 the bar of this Court.” Civ. L. R. 3-9(b). Because the Defendant in this action is a business, Mr. 19 Gul cannot file motions in this action without an attorney. See Rittenhouse Snoddy v. TEEMA, Inc., No. 4:25-CV-04563-KAW, 2025 WL 1635866, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2025) (finding that because the plaintiff was a corporation, it could participate in the litigation without an attorney).

9 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Defendant to show cause in writing no later than 73 February 20, 2026 why this Court should not strike the motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

95 Dated: January 20, 2026 { ( jau~ 26 SALLIE KIM 7 United States Magistrate Judge