Pembina Nation Little Shell Band of North America v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying Motion for Reconsideration. ORDERED that Objection to Dismissal 10 , which the Court has construed liberally as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Original Dismissal 9 is DENIED, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 10/9/12.(lygsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02058-LTB
PEMBINA NATION LITTLE SHELL BAND OF NORTH AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., and
ARONOWITZ & MECKLENBERG LLP,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff, Pembina Nation Little Shell Band of North America, filed a “Motion for
Original Dismissal” (ECF No. 9) and “Objection to Dismissal” (ECF No. 10), on
September 27, 2012. The documents were submitted pro se by Earl H. Brauch, who
indicates that he is a “Tribal Trustee Property Representative” for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Brauch, on behalf of the Plaintiff, objects to the Order of Dismissal and Judgment
entered in this case on September 14, 2012. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 52021 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). The Court construes
Plaintiff’s Objection liberally as a motion for reconsideration. The motion will be denied
for the reasons stated below.
A litigant subject to an adverse judgment, and who seeks reconsideration by the
district court of that adverse judgment, may “file either a motion to alter or amend the
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243

(10th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff filed the motion for reconsideration within twenty-eight days
after the Order of Dismissal and the Judgment were entered in the instant action. The
Court, therefore, finds that the motion for reconsideration is filed pursuant to Rule 59(e).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
The three major grounds that justify reconsideration are: (1) an intervening
change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Servants of the Paraclete v. Does,
204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Upon review of the motion for reconsideration
and the entire file, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that any of the
grounds justifying reconsideration exist in his case.
The Court dismissed this action because, pursuant to the Court’s local rules, 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.”). Mr. Brauch is not a licensed
attorney, and, therefore, he may not represent Pembina National Little Shell Band of
North America, or any other entity, in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654. On August 7,
2012, the Court ordered Mr. Brauch to submit a Complaint and a Motion for Leave to

2

Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, on his own behalf, but he failed to do so by the
court-ordered deadline.
Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the order of dismissal on the basis that
he was appointed as the Tribal Trustee Representative for the subject real property by
Chief Lawrence Henry. Mr. Brauch also makes numerous citations to various federal
laws and the Constitution which are largely unintelligible. Mr. Brauch fails to
demonstrate an intervening change in the controlling law, the availability of new
evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Servants
of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. The motion for reconsideration will be denied
because Mr. Brauch has not asserted any of the major grounds that would justify
reconsideration in this case. See Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Objection to Dismissal (ECF No. 10), filed on September 27,
2012, which the Court has construed liberally as a motion for reconsideration, is
DENIED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Original Dismissal (ECF No. 9), filed
on September 27, 2012, is DENIED.
Dated at Denver, Colorado this 9th day of

October

, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3