Stephen Yagman v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. et al

Filing 14

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL OF CLASS CLAIMS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 2/10/2017. (vdr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-9536 FMO (SSx)

Title

Stephen Yagman v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

February 1, 2017

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal of Class
Claims

On December 27, 2016, pro se plaintiff Stephen Yagman (“plaintiff” or “Yagman”)), filed a
Complaint against several defendants relating to allegedly defective kitchen appliances. (See Dkt.
1, Complaint at ¶¶ 4-15). Although not in compliance with the Local Rules, see Local Rule 23-1
(“The title of any pleading purporting to commence a class action shall include the legend: ‘(Title
of Pleading) Class Action.’”), the Complaint includes class action allegations. (See Dkt. 1,
Complaint at ¶¶ 67-76).
“Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege
is personal to him.” C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)
“He has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” Id.; see Simon v. Hartford
Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[C]ourts have routinely adhered to the general rule
prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.”).
The prohibition on pro se representation of others extends to class actions. See Grayton v. U.S.,
514 Fed.App’x. 645, 646 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Summary judgment on [plaintiff]’s claims on behalf of
a putative class was . . . proper because pro se litigants have no authority to represent anyone
other than themselves.”); Mackenzie v. Hutchens, 2013 WL 8291758, * 1 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (“a pro
se litigant who is not an attorney is not qualified to fairly and adequately represent the interests
of the members of [a] putative class.”).
Here, because Yagman is appearing pro se, he may not represent the class. See
Mackenzie, 2013 WL 8291758, at * 1. Also, plaintiff is aware that he may not pursue a class
action without an attorney. See Yagman v. Jay Bray, et al., Case No. CV 15-5512 FMO (JCx)
(ordering Yagman to retain counsel to prosecute class action); Stephan Yagman v. John Owen
Brennen, CV 15-1031, TJH (Ex) Dkt. No. 21 (dismissing case filed by Yagman because attorney
had not entered an appearance).
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff retain counsel to prosecute this
class action, and such counsel shall enter an appearance as counsel in this matter no later than
February 10, 2017. Failure of an attorney qualified to represent a class to make an appearance
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-9536 FMO (SSx)

Date

Title

Stephen Yagman v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., et al.

February 1, 2017

by February 10, 2017, shall result in the dismissal of the class claims and allegations without
prejudice.

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

vdr

Page 2 of 2