Methven & Associates Professional Corporation v. Paradies-Stroud et al

Filing 152

FURTHER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AGAINST SCARLETT STROUD, ANDY STROUD INC., AND STROUD PRODUCTIONS AND ENTERPRISES, INC. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 9/24/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

METHVEN AND ASSOCIATES
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION,

10

No. C 13-01079 JSW

11
v.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Plaintiff,
12
13

FURTHER ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AGAINST SCARLETT
STROUD, ANDY STROUD INC.
AND STROUD PRODUCTIONS
AND ENTERPRISES, INC.

SCARLETT PARADIES-STROUD, as
administrator of the ESTATE OF ANDREW
B. STROUD, et al.,

14
Defendants.
15

/

16
17

On December 19, 2013, the Court issued an Order revoking the pro hac vice status of

18

Mr. Robinson, who was counsel for Scarlett Paradies-Stroud as the representative of the Estate

19

of Andrew Stroud (“Paradies-Stroud”), Andy Stroud, Inc. (“ASI”) and Stroud Productions and

20

Enterprises, Inc. (“SPE”). The Court admonished ASI and SPE that they, as corporations,

21

cannot represent themselves. See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02

22

(1993); Civil Local Rule 3-9(b). ASI and SPE were ordered to obtain new counsel and to have

23

such new counsel file an appearance by January 17, 2014. Neither ASI nor SPE have done so.

24

With respect to Paradies-Stroud, the Court noted that it was not yet clear whether she

25

may proceed pro se or must retain counsel in order to appear on behalf of the estate of Andrew

26

B. Stroud. An attorney must represent a personal representative of an estate where the estate

27

has multiple beneficiaries and creditors. See Simon v. Harford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th

28

Cir. 2008) (“... courts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs

1

from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity”); Pridgen v. Andresen,

2

113 F.3d 391, 393 (2nd Cir. 1997); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (a claimant “must

3

assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or

4

interests of third parties”) (quotation omitted); see also C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States,

5

818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir. 1987) (trustee attempting to represent a trust pro se was not,

6

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1654, a “party” conducting his “own case personally” as he was not the

7

beneficial owner of the claims being asserted).

8
9

Paradies-Stroud was Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) in writing whether she intended
to appear pro se or through new counsel. The Court admonished Paradies-Stroud that if she
intended to proceed pro se, she must demonstrate that she is the sole beneficiary to the estate of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Andrew Stroud and that there are no other beneficiaries or creditors. Paradies-Stroud was

12

ordered to provide this statement, and supporting evidence, by no later than January 17, 2014.

13

If she intended to obtain new counsel, such counsel was ordered to file an appearance by

14

January 17, 2014. Paradies-Stroud did not file any response to the Court’s Order.

15

Accordingly, the Court found that sanctions were warranted against ASI, SPE and

16

Paradies-Stroud, both due to these parties’ failure to respond and, based on their lack of

17

representation by counsel, their inability to proceed in Court. With respect to the claims against

18

ASI, SPE and Paradies Stroud as the representative of the Stroud Estate, the Court explained

19

that proper sanction was the striking of their answer and the entry of default against them. With

20

respect to their affirmative counterclaims, the proper sanction was to dismiss those claims. The

21

initial Order by the Court did not give sufficient notice of these precise sanctions. Accordingly,

22

the Court provided a further OSC to ASI, SPE and Paradise-Stroud as the representative of the

23

Stroud Estate.

24

ASI, SPE and Ms. Stroud were each Ordered to Show Cause in writing by no later than

25

August 22, 2014 why the answers and counterclaims filed by ASI, SPE, and Paradise-Stroud

26

should not be stricken and/or dismissed and why default should not be entered against ASI,

27

SPE, and Paradise-Stroud as the representative of the Stroud Estate. ASI, SPE, and Paradise-

28

Stroud were admonished that their failure to respond to this OSC by August 22, 2014 would
2

1

result in the answers filed by ASI, SPE, and Andrew Stroud being stricken, their counterclaims

2

being dismissed, and default being entered against them in the above captioned matters without

3

further notice. Moreover, due to their failure to respond to the Order issued on December 19,

4

2013, and their inability to litigate due to their lack of representation, or, in the case of Paradise-

5

Stroud, her failure to demonstrate that she is authorized to represent the Estate of Andrew

6

Stroud on a pro se basis, the counterclaims by ASI, SPE, and the Estate of Andrew Stroud in the

7

above captioned matters would be dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice.

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ASI, SPE and Paradies-Stroud each failed to respond to the further OSC. Therefore, the
Court HEREBY DISMISSES the affirmative counterclaims by ASI, SPE and Paradies-Stroud
and STRIKES their answer and ENTERS DEFAULT against them.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: September 24, 2014
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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