Equity Trust Co v. Barr Anhut and Associates PC et al

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULES by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Court elects to refrain from dismissal at this stage, and instead ORDERSPlaintiff to show cause in writing by February 29, 2016 why this case should not be dismissed. The filing of an attorney appearance or brief not longer than ten pages arguing for the appropriateness of the pro se appearance in light of Local Rule 83- 2.2.2 will discharge this order. No hearing will be held. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

EQUITY TRUST Co.,

Case No. 5:15-cv-02642-ODW-KK

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

14

BARR ANHUT AND ASSOCIATES PC,

COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL

15

et al.,

RULES

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants.

1

On December 29, 2015, Plaintiff Equity Trust filed its Complaint against

2

Defendants Barr Anhut and Associates PC and others alleging claims for slander of

3

title, defamation, abuse of process, intrusion upon seclusion, conspiracy, unlawful

4

conversion, extortion, tortious interference, perjury, fraud, RICO violations, myriad

5

breach of contract claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of

6

enjoyment of life. (ECF No. 1, Compl.)

7

However, Plaintiff Equity Trust filed this lawsuit without the assistance of

8

counsel. Plaintiff is a corporation, and therefore may not appear in federal court pro

9

se. See C.D. Cal. R. 83–2.2.2 (“Only individuals may represent themselves pro se. No

10

organization or entity of any other kind (including corporations, ... ) may appear in

11

any action or proceeding unless represented by an attorney permitted to practice

12

before this Court under L.R. 83–2. 1.”). See also Rowland v. Cal.Men's Colony, Unit

13

II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the

14

better part of two centuries ... that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only

15

through licensed counsel.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the

16

parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the

17

rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes

18

therein.”). Here, the Complaint is signed by Gary Hann, the “Custodian FBO” of

19

Equity Trust, as Petitioner in Pro Se. (Compl.)

20

An individual representative may not make “an end run around section 1654”

21

by seeking to represent a corporation pro se. United States v. High Country Broad.

22

Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming entry of default judgment against

23

dissolved corporation where president and shareholder attempted to represent

24

corporation). “Since a corporation may not appear except through an attorney,

25

likewise the representative shareholder cannot appear without an attorney.” Phillips v.

26

Tobin, 548 F.2d 408, 411 (2d Cir.1976); see also Ramirez v. United States, No. SACV

27

14-581-JLS ANX, 2014 WL 5139339, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2014) aff'd, 604 F.

28

App'x 575 (9th Cir. 2015).

2

1

Because Equity Trust is not represented by counsel, Local Rule 83-2.2.4 applies

2

and Plaintiff’s “[f]ailure to comply with the rules … may be grounds for dismissal or

3

judgment by default.”

4

The Court elects to refrain from dismissal at this stage, and instead ORDERS

5

Plaintiff to show cause in writing by February 29, 2016 why this case should not be

6

dismissed. The filing of an attorney appearance or brief not longer than ten pages

7

arguing for the appropriateness of the pro se appearance in light of Local Rule 83-

8

2.2.2 will discharge this order. No hearing will be held.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

January 5, 2016

13
14
15

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3