From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 27, 1993
3 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir. 1993)

Summary

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Jackson v. Equifax Info. Servs.

Opinion

No. 92-15581.

Submitted August 13, 1993.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4.

Decided August 27, 1993.

John P. Greenspan, F.C.C., Washington, DC, and Suzanne M. Chynoweth, Asst. U.S. Atty., Phoenix, AZ, for plaintiff-appellee U.S. of America.

C.R. Crisler, Memphis, TN, pro se and for the defendant-appellant High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Before: KOZINSKI, THOMPSON and NELSON, Circuit Judges.



A corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. Rowland v. California Men's Colony, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1654. An attorney appeared for High Country in the district court for the limited purpose of filing an answer and cross-complaint. See CR 3. When it became apparent that Crisler (who was not a licensed attorney at that time) was attempting to represent High Country, the district court ordered High Country to retain counsel for the duration of the litigation. When High Country failed to do so, the district court entered a default judgment against it; this was perfectly appropriate. See, e.g., Shearson Loeb Rhoades, Inc. v. Quinard, 751 F.2d 1102 (9th Cir. 1985).

Crisler has since become a licensed attorney. He was admitted to practice before this court pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 46 and 9th Cir.R. 46.1, and is now counsel both for himself and High Country.

A more interesting issue is raised by the district court's refusal to let Crisler intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. Intervention as a matter of right is proper if (1) the motion is timely; (2) the applicant asserts an interest relating to the subject of the action; (3) without intervention, the disposition of the action may impair the applicant's ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant's interests are inadequately represented by the other parties. California ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 792 F.2d 779 (9th Cir. 1986).

Crisler was High Country's President and sole shareholder. His interests would have been adequately represented by High Country had it complied with the court's order to retain permanent counsel. But High Country didn't, resulting in a default judgment. This calls into question the adequacy of High Country's representation of Crisler's interests.

In an ordinary case we might have our doubts whether High Country could adequately represent Crisler's interests. But here Crisler's application to intervene pro se was nothing more than an end run around section 1654. As High Country's President, statutory agent and only shareholder, Crisler was singularly to blame for High Country's failure to retain counsel. As an intervenor, Crisler sought to accomplish the exact same objectives that he did as High Country's counsel — to represent High Country pro se. To allow a sole shareholder with interests identical to the corporation's to intervene under such circumstances, rather than hire corporate counsel, would eviscerate section 1654. We decline to read Rule 24 as condoning such a result. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 (court shall interpret rules to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action"); Marquis Theatre Corp. v. Condado Mini Cinema, 846 F.2d 86, 89 (1st Cir. 1988) (Rule 1 prevents party from flouting spirit of rules, even if party fits within their literal meaning). The district court did not err in denying Crisler's motion to intervene.

Finally, Crisler maintains High Country is "nonexistent" and cannot be sued. But the United States' claim survives the corporation's dissolution. See Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 10-105; see also Ruck Corp. v. Woudenberg, 125 Ariz. 519, 611 P.2d 106, 110 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1980).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 27, 1993
3 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir. 1993)

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Jackson v. Equifax Info. Servs.

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Bank of Am. v. Tiara Summit Homeowners Ass'n

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Nationstar Mortg. v. Fiesta Del Norte Homeowners Ass'n

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Line v. Golden Harvest Alaska Seafood LLC

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Nev. Prop. 1, LLC v. Kiwibank Ltd.

holding entry of default judgment against corporation appropriate where president and sole shareholder of corporation, who was not a licensed attorney, was attempting to represent the corporation, and court had ordered corporation to retain counsel

Summary of this case from Cape Dogwood Redevelopment Corp. v. Glob. Bowling, LLC

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Ferrari Fin. Servs. v. Biggs

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Wells Fargo Bank v. Smith

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Am. Auto. Ass'n v. AAA Anytime, Inc.

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Bank of Am., N.A. v. Villas Cmty. Ass'n

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Bank of Am., N.A. v. Auburn & Bradford at Providence Homeowners' Ass'n

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Corpolo Ave. Tr.

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Leggiere v. ABS Facility Servs. Inc.

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Chea

holding it was appropriate for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action through licensed counsel

Summary of this case from J&J Sports Prod., Inc. v. Coco Beach Corp.

holding that the district court's entry of default was appropriate where a corporate defendant failed to comply with an order to retain counsel for the duration of the litigation

Summary of this case from Progressive Int'l Corp. v. AMGTM LLC

holding that the district court's entry of default was appropriate where a corporate defendant failed to comply with an order to retain counsel for the duration of the litigation

Summary of this case from Societe D'Equipments Internationaux Nigeria, Ltd. v. Dolarian Capital, Inc.

holding that default judgment is an appropriate sanction for a corporation's failure to retain counsel for the duration of the litigation

Summary of this case from Backman v. Goggin

holding that when a defendant is ordered to retain counsel and the defendant fails to do so, entry of a default judgment against defendant is "perfectly appropriate"

Summary of this case from Terrafusion Int'l, Inc. v. Terrafusion, Inc.

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Howard v. Polley

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Pundyk

holding that "[t]o allow a sole shareholder with interests identical to the corporation's to intervene under such circumstances, rather than hire corporate counsel, would eviscerate [28 U.S.C.] section 1654," and "declin[ing] to read Rule 24 as condoning such a result"

Summary of this case from Glob. Ebusiness Servs., Inc. v. Interactive Broker LLC

holding it was appropriate for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action through licensed counsel

Summary of this case from Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Xiaolong LI

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Perlowin v. Hemphill

holding that it was "perfectly appropriate" for the district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the action

Summary of this case from Riviera on the Sea of Cortez, LLC v. Chavez
Case details for

U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-CROSS-DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, v. HIGH…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 27, 1993

Citations

3 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir. 1993)

Citing Cases

LegalZoom.com, Inc. v. Macey Bankr. Law, P.C.

It is well-settled law that business entities—such as Defendants —may only appear in federal courts through…

Bd. of Trs. of Ibew Local Union No. 100 Pension Trust Fund v. Porges

The Porges Defendants are advised that "a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed…