United States of America v. Welch et al

Filing 59

ORDER granting 54 Motion to Strike. Defendant J. Welch's Response to Motion for Default Judgment Against Jim D. Welch, as Executive Trustee of Celestial Pursuits Trust 43 , and Defendant J. Welch's Motion 44 are both STRICKEN from the record. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/26/12.(cmacd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02292-CMA-KLM
USA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES D. WELCH, individually and as Executive Trustee of Celestial Pursuits Trust,
AMRA WELCH, as nominee/alter ego of James D. Welch, and
CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant James D. Welch’s (“J. Welch”)
Response to Complaint and Motion to Strike [Docket No. 44; Filed May 8, 2012]
(“Defendant J. Welch’s Motion”) and on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Pleadings on Behalf
of Celestial Pursuits Trust by Jim D. Welch [Docket No. 54; Filed May 25, 2012]
(“Plaintiff’s Motion”). Defendant J. Welch has not timely filed a Response to Plaintiff’s
Motion.
Plaintiff asks the Court to strike two documents filed by Defendant J. Welch: 1)
Defendant J. Welch’s Response to Motion for Default Judgment Against Jim D. Welch, as
Executive Trustee of Celestial Pursuits Trust [#43], and 2) Defendant J. Welch’s Response
to Complaint and Motion to Strike [#44]. Plaintiff argues that these two documents were
impermissibly filed by Defendant J. Welch as a pro se representative of Celestial Pursuits

-1-

Trust.
A corporation, partnership, or other legal entity, such as a trust, “cannot appear
without counsel admitted to practice before this court . . . .” D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.3D;
Amoco Prod. Co. v. Aspen Grp., 25 F. Supp. 2d 1162, 1166 (D. Colo. 1998). See also C.E.
Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir. 1987) (“He may not claim
that his status as trustee includes the right to present arguments pro se in federal court.”);
Knoefler v. United Bank of Bismarck, 20 F.3d 347, 348 (8th Cir. 1994) (“A nonlawyer, such
as these purported [pro se trustees,] has no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust,
in a court of the United States.”).
The Response to Motion for Default Judgment Against Jim D. Welch, as Executive
Trustee of Celestial Pursuits Trust [#43] is clearly a response by a pro se litigant, Defendant
J. Welch, on behalf of Celestial Pursuits Trust, as the underlying motion was directed at the
trust through Defendant J. Welch in his official capacity as Executive Trustee. See Motion
for Entry of Default as to Jim D. Welch, as Executive Trustee, Celestial Pursuits Trust [#40].
Further, Defendant J. Welch clearly responds in each of the documents at issue solely in
his personal capacity. See Response to Motion for Default Judgment Against Jim D.
Welch, as Executive Trustee of Celestial Pursuits Trust [#43] at 1 (stating “COMES NOW,
Jim David Welch, erroneously identified as Executive Trustee of Celestial Pursuits Trust”);
Defendant J. Welch’s Motion [#44] at 1 (same). Yet, in each document, Defendant J.
Welch attempts to address arguments made against the trust. See Response to Motion
for Default Judgment Against Jim D. Welch, as Executive Trustee of Celestial Pursuits
Trust [#43] at 1; Defendant J. Welch’s Motion [#44] at 11-12.

However, such

representation by a pro se litigant on behalf of a trust is impermissible. See Amoco Prod.
-2-

Co., 25 F. Supp. 2d at 1166.1
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion [#54] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant J. Welch’s Response to Motion for
Default Judgment Against Jim D. Welch, as Executive Trustee of Celestial Pursuits Trust
[#43] and Defendant J. Welch’s Motion [#44] are both STRICKEN from the record.

Dated: June 26, 2012

1

The Court further notes that Defendant J. Welch’s Motion [#44] does not comply with
Local Rule 7.1C., which requires that a “motion shall not be included in a response or reply to the
original motion. A motion shall be made in a separate paper.” That motion may be denied on this
basis alone.

-3-