Judd v. Marin City Housing Authority
Filing
12
ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 10 Motion to have Representative Speak on Plaintiff's Behalf; Order to Show Cause. Order to Show Cause response due by December 9, 2016. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
DEBRA A. JUDD,
Case No. 16-cv-04818-KAW
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
MARIN CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY,
Defendant.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 9, 10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO HAVE
REPRESENTATIVE SPEAK ON
PLAINTIFF'S BEHALF; ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE
12
13
On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant suit against Defendant Marin City Housing
14
Authority, alleging negligence. (Compl., Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to
15
proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court granted on September 23, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 8.) On
16
September 30, 2016, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint
17
with leave to amend, finding that: (1) Plaintiff failed to separately plead each cause of action, (2)
18
the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case as currently pled, and (3) Plaintiff failed
19
to adequately plead a negligence claim. (Dkt. No. 9 at 2-4.) Having dismissed Plaintiff's
20
complaint, the Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 4.)
21
On November 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to have her son speak on her behalf. (Dkt.
22
No. 10.) The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff can only be represented by an attorney,
23
and Plaintiff does not state that her son is an attorney. If Plaintiff's son represents her in Court, he
24
will be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, which is prohibited. See Cal. Bus. & Prof.
25
Code § 6125 ("No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of
26
the State Bar").
27
Additionally, Plaintiff's motion must be denied because there is no operative complaint in
28
this case. Plaintiff's amended complaint was due by October 31, 2016; as of November 15, 2016,
1
Plaintiff has yet to file an amended complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff is ordered, on or before
2
December 9, 2016, to 1) file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies identified by the
3
Court's September 30, 2016 order, and 2) respond to this order to show cause by explaining why
4
she did not file a timely amended complaint. Failure to complete both tasks by December 9, 2016
5
may result in the Court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 15, 2016
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
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
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?