Pete Nijjar v. General Star National Insurance Company et al

Filing 44

ORDER DENYING NIJJAR REALITY INC EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF PARTY 41 by Judge George H. King: NRI shall have 14 days from the date of this Order to submit documentation establishing that (1) in moving to have NRI substituted in as Pl aintiff, Mike Nijjar is acting with authorization of NRI as provided in the companys bylaws or a resolution of its board of directors, and (2) NRI is in good standing to be able to sue. If NRI fails to timely and adequately show authorized action on its behalf as required by this Order,this Application will be denied, and this action will be dismissedfor lack of standing by Pete Nijjar at the expiration of the 14 days. (lc) .Modified on 3/26/2014 .(lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PETE NIJJAR,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY
COMPANY,

15
Defendant.
16
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 12-08148 DDP (JCGx)
ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
SUBSTITUTE
[DKT No. 41.]

17
18

This matter comes before us on Nijjar Reality, Inc. (“NRI”)’s

19

Ex Parte Application for Substitution of Party. (DKT No. 41.)

20

Defendant General Star Indemnity Company (“General Star”) opposes

21

the Application. (DKT No. 42.) The matter is suitable for decision

22

without oral argument. Having considered the parties’ submissions,

23

we deny NRI’s Ex Parte Application for the following reasons:

24

Our February 28, 2014 Order provided as follows: “NRI [as the

25

real party in interest to this action] shall have 21 days from the

26

date of this Order to ratify, join or be substituted into the

27

action. If this has not occurred, we will grant summary judgment

28

against Nijjar for lack of standing as described above at that

1

time. Any purported action by NRI, a corporation, shall fully

2

comply with corporate law relating to any such action by the

3

corporation.” (DKT No. 33 at 8.)

4

On March 19, 2014, NRI purportedly appeared and requested that

5

it be substituted in as Plaintiff. (DKT No. 41.) The Application

6

was accompanied by a Declaration of Mike Nijjar, who represents

7

himself as "a principle [sic] and owner of NRI." (Declaration of

8

Mike Nijjar in Support of Ex Parte Application ¶ 1.) Mike Nijjar

9

asserts in the declaration that the counsel who filed the

10

Application “is NRI’s authorized counsel.” (Id. ¶ 4.) He states

11

further that "NRI hereby expresses its desire to pursue the Claims

12

asserted in this case and is respectfully requesting to be

13

substituted into this action as Plaintiff." (Id. ¶ 17.)

14

As a general matter, California law provides that "a

15

corporation may sue upon authorization of its board of directors or

16

upon the initiative of its president or managing officer." Anmaco,

17

Inc. v. Bohlken, 13 Cal. App. 4th 891, 900 (1993) (quotation mark

18

and citation omitted). However, the law is unsettled as to whether

19

a president or managing officer has implied or inherent authority

20

to file suit on the corporation's behalf, without authorization to

21

do so in the corporation's bylaws or via resolution of the board of

22

directors. See, e.g., id.; 9 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed.

23

2005) Corporations, § 109 (noting that "there is disagreement

24

whether even the president has implied power to sue without board

25

authorization or ratification").

26

Here, as General Star points out in its Opposition, Mike

27

Nijjar does not make clear in his declaration that he is the

28

president or managing officer of NRI. He asserts only that he is a
2

1

“principle” [sic]. Nor does he assert that NRI’s board of directors

2

or its corporate by-laws have authorized such action or pointed to

3

evidence of such authorization. The Application is also not

4

accompanied by any evidence that NRI is in good standing to be able

5

to sue. Normally, we do not require such attestations or evidence

6

when a corporation brings an action. However, there is a dispute as

7

to the real party in interest, and given the history of this case,

8

we require more than the bare assertions made in the instant

9

Application to ensure that the case is properly before us.

10

NRI shall have 14 days from the date of this Order to submit

11

documentation establishing that (1) in moving to have NRI

12

substituted in as Plaintiff, Mike Nijjar is acting with

13

authorization of NRI as provided in the company’s bylaws or a

14

resolution of its board of directors, and (2) NRI is in good

15

standing to be able to sue. If NRI fails to timely and adequately

16

show authorized action on its behalf as required by this Order,

17

this Application will be denied, and this action will be dismissed

18

for lack of standing by Pete Nijjar at the expiration of the 14

19

days.

20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22

Dated: March 25, 2014

23
24
25
26
27

GEORGE H. KING
Chief United States District Judge
for
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

28
3