Oseguera

Oseguera v. Zhu

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 11, 20204:17-cv-03252California869 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFONSO OSEGUERA, et al., Case No. 17-cv-03252-PJH Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART APPLICATION

LONGHUA ZHU, et al., FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 87

The court is in receipt of defendant Longhua Zhu’s (“defendant Zhu”), defendant Fusan Corporation’s (“defendant Fusan Corp.”), and attorney Danning Jiang’s (“attorney Jiang”) application for substitution of counsel (Dkt. 87) filed February 6, 2020. In their application, defendants list their “new counsel” as “pro per” for both defendant Zhu and defendant Fusan Corp. The contact information listed for each defendant is identical and appears to belong to defendant Zhu, who failed to show that he is a member of the bar of this court. While a natural person may represent him or herself in this court, Civ. L.R. 3- 9(a), a “corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only through…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.