California drives me nuts with lazy references to LLCs — “limited liability companies” — as” limited liability corporations.” See, e.g., Dear California: LLCs are Not Corporations. Or Are They?

A 2010 case recently posted to Westlaw provides another example, this time from the local rules for the United States District Court for the Central District of California.  The case deals with an attorney withdrawing as counsel for an LLC, which requires the withdrawing attorney to provide notice to soon-to-be former client YPA, that as

a limited liability company that cannot proceed pro se, its failure to have new counsel file a timely notice of appearance will result in the dismissal of its complaint for failure to prosecute and of the entry of its default on the cross-complaint.

This is fairly typical, as entities are generally not allowed to appear pro se — that is reserved as an option for natural persons. However, because of poor drafting, the local rules keep open the possibility that an LLC could appear pro se.  As the court notes in footnote 9, the rules provide:

^9. See CA CD L.R. 83-2.10.1 (“[a] corporation including a limited liability corporation, a partnership including a limited liability partnership, an unincorporated association, or a trust may not appear in any action or proceeding pro se.”)

None of this is new, coming from me.  But I’m not giving up, even if I that tree I keep banging my head on is a Redwood.