Yok Hing Law v. The Superior Court of California For Alameda County et al

Filing 11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 8/2/2013. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/12/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MICHAEL VARTANIAN for YOK HING
LAW,

No. C-13-2873 EMC

9
Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
v.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,
12
13

Defendant.
___________________________________/

14
15

Michael Vartanian filed this suit on behalf of Yok Hing Law on June 21, 2013. Vartanian,

16

who apparently is not an attorney, seeks to represent Law in this action because Law has a mental

17

disability that makes it difficult for her to communicate and to understand her case. Compl. ¶ 15.

18

Law is apparently not incapacitated or incompetent, however, and the complaint thus states that the

19

appointment of a guardian ad litem is not appropriate. Id. The complaint alleges that Vartanian is

20

authorized to represent Law as a non-attorney by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§

21

12101 et seq., but does not cite to any particular provision of that statute providing such authority.

22

Parties appearing in federal courts may appear either personally as pro se litigants or through

23

an attorney, but they generally may not be represented by a non-attorney. 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Johns

24

v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (“While a non-attorney may appear pro se

25

on his own behalf, ‘[h]e has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.’”) (quoting

26

C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.1987)). Even where a minor or

27

incompetent person is represented by a next friend or guardian ad litem, a non-attorney next friend

28

or guardian is not permitted to appear on behalf of that person in federal court without retaining an

1

attorney. See Johns, 114 F.3d at 877 (“a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a

2

minor child without retaining a lawyer”); Berrios v. New York City Hous. Auth., 564 F.3d 130, 134

3

(2d Cir. 2009) (“The fact that a minor or incompetent person must be represented by a next friend,

4

guardian ad litem, or other fiduciary does not alter the principle embodied in § 1654 that a

5

non-attorney is not allowed to represent another individual in federal court litigation without the

6

assistance of counsel. If the representative of the minor or incompetent person is not himself an

7

attorney, he must be represented by an attorney in order to conduct the litigation.”).

8
9

Given this general rule, Vartanian is hereby ORDERED to show cause why he should not be
barred from representing Law in this action as a non-attorney. His response should cite to legal
authority providing the basis for his ability to serve as a non-attorney representative in this action.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

He shall file his response with the Court by no later than August 2, 2013.

12

For Vartanian’s and Law’s benefit, the Court directs their attention to the Handbook for Pro

13

Se Litigants, which is available along with further information for the parties on the Court’s website

14

located at http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. They may also contact the Legal Help Center, 450

15

Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, Telephone No. (415) 782–9000 extension 8657, for

16

free legal advice regarding Mr. Law’s claims.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: July 12, 2013

21
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2