Kraft v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 124

Order GRANTING 115 Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin on August 30, 2024. (amolc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RUNE KRAFT,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 22-cv-01266-AMO
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 115

Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff Rune Kraft brings this civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

14

(“RICO”) Act lawsuit against Defendant Wells Fargo & Company (“Wells Fargo”) and several of

15

its current and former executives. Kraft alleges that Wells Fargo wrongfully permitted

16

unauthorized persons to open bank accounts in the names of corporations owned by Kraft and

17

eventually withdraw $1.3 million of the corporations’ assets for themselves. See Compl. ¶¶ 277,

18

326. Kraft brings his claims as an assignee of Pacific Equipment Management Company

19

(“Pacific”), the successor by merger to the three corporations that allegedly suffered the injuries.

20

Compl. ¶ 326.12. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF 115. The Court

21

assumes familiarity with the facts and the procedural history of this case.

22

This case follows several previous attempts by Kraft, proceeding in propria persona, to

23

litigate claims “assigned” to him by corporations. See, e.g., Kraft v. Chevron Corp., No. CV-21-

24

00575-PHX-DJH, 2021 WL 5882626, at *2 (D. Ariz. Dec. 10, 2021); Kraft v. Tulare Cnty., No.

25

121CV00768JLTSKO, 2023 WL 2655851, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2023), reconsideration

26

denied, No. 121CV00768JLTSKO, 2023 WL 5417496 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2023). In those and

27

other cases, district courts regularly and repeatedly dismissed the claims brought by Kraft,

28

admonishing him that a corporation must appear in court through an attorney and rejecting his

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

attempts to circumvent this rule by styling corporate claims as his own. See id.; see also, e.g.,

2

Lofthus v. Long Beach Veterans Hosp., 214 F. Supp. 3d 908, 913 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (“Plaintiff may

3

appear in pro per for himself only. He may not represent anyone else in federal court.”); Inland

4

Concrete Enterprises, Inc. v. Kraft Americas L.P., 2015 WL 11233232, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 6,

5

2015) (“Finally, the Court admonishes defendants that Kraft Americas L.P. may not proceed or

6

file anything pro se.”) (emphasis omitted); Kraft v. Old Castle Precast Inc., 2015 WL 11232401,

7

at *1-3 (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2015) (admonishing Plaintiff that “if he persists in submitting

8

documents on behalf of KALP or otherwise purporting to represent KALP in this case, he may

9

face sanctions – including monetary sanction, dismissal without prejudice of his complaint, and/or

10

dismissal with prejudice of his complaint.”) (emphasis in original); 24-7 Grp. of Companies, Inc.

11

v. Roberts, 2014 WL 12708874, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 8, 2014) (dismissing action due to failure of

12

plaintiff corporation, for which Kraft was chairman, to secure counsel); United States ex rel. Kraft

13

v. Calportland Constr., 2018 WL 4378757, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2018) (“Plaintiff may only

14

pursue a qui tam[ ] action under the [False Claims Act] when represented by counsel.”). Kraft is

15

thus well aware that “ ‘a pro se litigant who is not an attorney cannot assert claims in federal court

16

that an artificial entity, such as a corporation or a limited liability company, has assigned to her.’ ”

17

Kraft v. Chevron, 2021 WL 5882626, at *2 (quoting Kumaran v. ADM Inv’r Servs., 2020 WL

18

4926263, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2020)).

19

Kraft alleges that Pacific Equipment Management Company assigned its claims to him.

20

See Compl. ¶ 326.12. “As Plaintiff has been reminded repeatedly, irrespective of a purported

21

assignment, Plaintiff may not appear pro se on behalf of a corporation such as Pacific.” Kraft v.

22

Tulare Cnty., 2023 WL 2655851, at *4 (citing Bischoff v. Waldorf, 660 F. Supp. 2d 815, 816 (E.D.

23

Mich. 2009) (“A corporation’s claims, even when purportedly ‘assigned’ to an individual, must be

24

litigated by a licensed attorney.”)). Indeed, “ ‘[i]t has been the law for the better part of two

25

centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.’ ”

26

Kraft v. Chevron Corp., 2021 WL 5882626, at *2 (quoting Rowland v. California Men’s Colony,

27

Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993)). Kraft’s factual allegations cannot

28

demonstrate that he possesses Article III standing to bring claims on behalf of Pacific. The Court
2

1

therefore DISMISSES the action for lack of jurisdiction.

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 30, 2024

5
6
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3