Jose Orozco, et al v. Castle, Stawiarki, LLC et al

Filing 9

ORDER. Americas Home Retention Services, Inc. must retain an attorney to prosecute this action on its behalf not later than June 22, 2012 or its claims will be dismissed; By June 22, 2012, all Juan Doe Plaintiffs must either enter an appearance on t heir own behalf or retain an attorney to enter an appearance on their behalf. Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of their claims Plaintiff Alfonso Carrillos claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Alfonso Carrillo is DISMISSED as a party-Plaintiff from this action. By Judge William J. Martinez on 5/31/2012. (sahsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 12-cv-1385-WJM-MEH
AMERICA’S HOME RETENTION SERVICES, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
CASTLE, STAWIARSKI, LLC,
MR. LAWRENCE E. CASTLE,
GOVERNENT TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS (GTS),
ROBERT J. HOPP & ASSOCIATES LLC.,
MR. GARY GLENN,
ENTRAVISION/UNIVISION KCEC-TV,
CBS 4 NEWS KCNC-TV, and
DENVER DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING THE CLAIMS OF ALFONSO CARRILLO, REQUIRING
AMERICA’S HOME RETENTION SERVICES, INC. TO LOCATE COUNSEL,
AND REQUIRING THE JUAN DOE PLAINTIFFS TO ENTER
THEIR OWN APPEARANCES OR RETAIN COUNSEL

On May 29, 2012, a Complaint was filed in this Court by Alfonso A. Carrillo in his
capacity as President of America’s Home Retention Services. (Compl. (ECF No. 2) p.
33.) The Complaint states that the Plaintiff is “America’s Home Retention Services,
Inc.” and that Alfonso Carrillo is this corporation’s “duly authorized officer”, “Owner”, and
“President”. (Id. at 1.) The Complaint also states that it is brought by Alfonso Carrillo
“as Trustee for all unnamed listed homeowners Juan Doe 1 thru Juan Doe 135". (Id. at
1.) Attached to the Complaint is a spreadsheet listing 166 Juan Doe Plaintiffs, along
with the addresses of their properties, the city and county in which each property is

located, financial information about each property, and which Defendant was involved
with each Doe Plaintiff’s property. (Id. at 35-40.)
The Complaint contains a number of deficiencies that must be addressed before
the Court can allow it to proceed. The Court will address these issues in turn below.
A.

America’s Home Retention Services, Inc.
Mr. Carrillo purports to be representing America’s Home Retention Services, Inc.

based on his status as the corporation’s “duly authorized officer”, “Owner”, and
“President”. (Compl. at 1.) However, a corporation can appear in court only through a
licensed attorney. A non-attorney corporate officer may not represent the corporation in
court proceedings. See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02
(1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation
may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.”); Harrison v.
Wahatoyas, LLC, 253 F.3d 552, 556 (10th Cir. 2001) (“As a general matter, a
corporation or other business entity can only appear in court through an attorney and
not through a non-attorney corporate officer appearing pro se.”). Mr. Carrillo is not an
attorney and is not authorized to practice law in this District or the State of Colorado.
Therefore, he cannot represent America’s Home Retention Services, Inc. in this action.
Because it is possible that America’s Home Retention Services, Inc. was
unaware of this rule, the Court will permit it the opportunity to locate counsel to
represent it in this matter. If no attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of
Plaintiff America’s Home Retention Services, Inc. by June 22, 2012, the Court will
dismiss the corporation’s claims.

2

B.

Juan Doe Plaintiffs 1–166
Mr. Carrillo also purports to represent the 166 Juan Doe Plaintiffs as their

“Trustee”. (Compl. at 1.) The Complaint states that: “Plaintiff Carrillo, appointed as
Trustee and agent for dozens of homeowners and victims have been given authority to
interplead their cause through this action.” (Id. at 4.) Federal law provides that an
individual such as Mr. Carrillo “may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by
counsel”. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. However, a non-attorney cannot represent the interests of
another individual in federal court. Lyons v. Zavaras, 308 F. App’x 252 (10th Cir. 2009)
(“a pro se litigant may not represent other pro se litigants in federal court.”); Fymbo v.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000) (a pro se litigant may
only bring his own claims because “the competence of a layman is clearly too limited to
allow him to risk the rights of others.”). The fact that Mr. Carrillo alleges that he is the
“Trustee” for the Juan Doe Plaintiffs does not change this analysis. C.f., Meeker v.
Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1986) (special relationship between parent and
child did not permit parent to bring suit on behalf of child absent the participation of an
attorney).
Because Mr. Carrillo is not an attorney, he cannot bring the claims of the Juan
Doe Plaintiffs in this action. Each Juan Doe Plaintiff must either enter his or her own
personal appearance and represent their own interests or must retain an attorney to
represent their interests. The Juan Doe Plaintiffs are hereby on notice that the Court
will dismiss the claim of any Juan Doe Plaintiff that has not either entered an
appearance on their own behalf or had an attorney enter an appearance on their behalf

3

by June 22, 2012.
C.

Claims Brought By Mr. Carrillo on His Own Behalf
As previously stated, because Mr. Carrillo is not an attorney, he can only

represent himself in this action. Moreover, he can only brings claims related to his own
injuries. “The prudential standing doctrine encompasses various limitations, including
the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights. The plaintiff
generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim on
the legal right or interests of third parties.” Wilderness Soc’y v. Kane Cnty., Utah, 632
F.3d 1162, 1168 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The
Complaint is replete with alleged wrongs that occurred to other individuals. However,
the Court cannot permit Mr. Carrillo to base any of his claims on wrongs that were
perpetrated against anyone other than himself.
The Court has reviewed the Complaint and the only allegations that involve Mr.
Carrillo personally relate to an ongoing criminal prosecution in the Denver District Court.
(Compl. ¶¶ 5.4.8(C), (E), (K), (L), (M), (N), (S) & (T); 5.5.9; 5.5.10; 6.3.2; 6.4.2; 6.4.3;
6.5.3.) Mr. Carrillo alleges that the Denver District Attorney acted in bad faith by
bringing this prosecution and that his constitutional rights have been violated in various
ways throughout the course of the prosecution. (Id.) The Complaint alleges that the
criminal prosecution against Mr. Carrillo is ongoing and asks that the United States
Attorney for the District of Colorado take over the criminal investigation and
prosecution. (Id. at 33.)
A federal court cannot generally interfere with an ongoing state criminal

4

prosecution. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971); D.L. v. Unified Sch. Dist.
No. 497, 392 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (10th Cir. 2004). Under what is commonly referred to
as the Younger doctrine, a federal court must abstain from hearing a case when: “(1)
there is an ongoing state criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding, (2) the state court
provides an adequate forum to hear the claims raised in the federal complaint, and (3)
the state proceedings involve important state interests, matters which traditionally look
to state law for their resolution or implicate separately articulated state policies.” Crown
Point I, LLC v. Intermountain Rural Elec. Ass’n, 319 F.3d 1211, 1215 (10th Cir. 2003).
Based on Mr. Carrillo’s allegations in the Complaint, it appears he is the subject
of an active criminal prosecution brought by the Denver District Attorney’s Office. There
is no allegation that the Denver District Court is incapable of affording Mr. Carrillo an
adequate forum to adjudicate the claims he has raised here. Moreover, the charges
involved in Mr. Carrillo’s criminal prosecution are based in Colorado state law, which the
State of Colorado has an important interest in enforcing. Because all three of the
Younger requirement are present here, the Court therefore finds that it must abstain
from hearing any claim related to Mr. Carrillo’s ongoing state criminal prosecution.
The Court notes that it raises these issues sua sponte and that Mr. Carrillo has
not had an opportunity to be heard on the dismissal of his claims. However, Tenth
Circuit law is clear that the Court may raise Younger abstention sua sponte. Sanchez
v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 307 F. App’x 155, 158 (10th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the Court
may dismiss Mr. Carrillo’s claims without granting him leave to amend because the
Court finds that amendment would be futile. See Curley v. Perry, 236 F.3d 1278, 1283

5

(10th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, the Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Carrillo’s claims related to
his ongoing state criminal prosecution. As these were the only claims in the Complaint
brought by Mr. Carrillo on his own behalf, Mr. Carillo is dismissed as a party-Plaintiff
from this action.
D.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1.

America’s Home Retention Services, Inc. must retain an attorney to prosecute
this action on its behalf not later than June 22, 2012 or its claims will be
dismissed;

2.

By June 22, 2012, all Juan Doe Plaintiffs must either enter an appearance on
their own behalf or retain an attorney to enter an appearance on their behalf.
Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of their claims;

3.

Plaintiff Alfonso Carrillo’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based
on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); and

4.

Alfonso Carrillo is DISMISSED as a party-Plaintiff from this action.
Dated this 31st day of May, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

6