Romman v. Gao et al

Filing 29

ORDER Granting 23 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The court will allow Plaintiff 30 days to cure. If counsel does not appear on behalf of Plaintiff within that time, the Court will dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/29/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9

LANA ROMMAN, derivatively on behalf of
YUHE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.
ZHENTAO GAO, CHENGXIANG HAN,
PETER LI, GREG HUETT, YAOJUN LIU
and GANG HU,

13
14
15
16
17
18

Case No. 2:11-cv-01178-MMD-CWH
ORDER
(Nom. Def.’s Motion to Dismiss
– dkt. no. 23)

Defendants,
and
YUHE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Nominal Defendant.
Before the Court is Nominal Defendant Yuhe International, Inc.’s Motion to
Dismiss. (Dkt. no. 23.) For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is granted.

19

Plaintiff Lana Romman (“Plaintiff”) brought this shareholder derivative action on

20

July 19, 2011, on behalf of nominal defendant Yuhe International, Inc. (“Yuhe”) to seek

21

redress for the alleged breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the Company’s

22

public disclosures regarding certain acquisitions.

23

Counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw (dkt. no. 20), because Plaintiff had been out of

24

contact with counsel, despite counsel’s repeated and varied attempts to reach her, for

25

over four and one half months and counsel was unable to continue the prosecution of

26

the action without Plaintiff’s input. The Court granted the Motion to Withdraw in its Order

27

dated December 18, 2012. (Dkt. no. 21.) To date, Plaintiff has not obtained new counsel

28

or taken any action regarding the prosecution of this case. Nominal Defendant Yuhe

On December 17, 2012, Plaintiff’s

1

International, Inc. (“Yuhe”) now moves to dismiss the Complaint because Plaintiff may

2

not proceed pro se in a shareholder derivative action. Plaintiff did not file an opposition

3

to the Motion.

4

Initially, the Court notes that under Local Rule 7-2, “[t]he failure of an opposing

5

party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to

6

the granting of the motion.” Thus, the Court may properly grant Yuhe’s Motion due to

7

Plaintiff’s failure to oppose it. However, the Court finds that the Motion is also properly

8

granted on its merits.

9

“It is well established that the privilege to represent oneself pro se provided by [28

10

U.S.C.] § 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities.”

11

Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, except in

12

cases where independent statutory authority for self-representation exists, “courts have

13

routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se litigants from pursing claims on

14

behalf of others in a representative capacity.” Id. (citing C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United

15

States, 818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, the right to bring a

16

shareholder’s derivative suit is that of the corporation; the shareholder is simply the

17

corporation’s representative. Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d 408, 411 (2nd Cir. 1976). Thus,

18

because a corporation must be represented by counsel, the representative-shareholder

19

must similarly be represented. Id.; see also United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3

20

F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993).

21

As Plaintiff is currently unrepresented and has been for some time, the action on

22

behalf of the corporation may not be maintained. Accordingly, Yuhe’s Motion is

23

GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Court will allow

24

Plaintiff thirty (30) days to cure. If counsel does not appear on behalf of Plaintiff within

25

that time, the Court will dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

Dated: 4/29/2013
2