Securities and Exchange Commission v. Kaplan, Esq. et al
ORDER denying Defendant David B. Kaplan's ECF No. 73 Motion to Represent Defendants and Relief Defendants. Defendants and Relief Defendants must appear through retained counsel by 7/19/2017. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/24/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
Case No. 3:16-cv-00270-MMD-VPC
DAVID B. KAPLAN, ESQ.,
SOLUTIONS, LLC, SYNCHRONIZED
INTERNATIONAL, LTD, and MANNA
INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC.,
LISA M. KAPLAN, THE WATERWALKING FOUNDATION, INC., and
MANNA INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Before the Court is Defendant David B. Kaplan’s (“Kaplan”) motion to represent
his co-defendants (“Defendants”) and Relief Defendants (“Motion”). (ECF No. 73.) Plaintiff
has responded and Defendant has replied. (ECF Nos. 76, 77.) For the reasons discussed
below, the Motion is denied.
Kaplan asked the Court to waive the requirements of LR IA11-2(a) and LR IA 11-
2(b)’s admission fee.1 In particular, Kaplan asked the Court to waive two of LR IA 11-
2(a)’s requirements: (1) that an attorney who is seeking admission to practice in a
particular case not be a resident of Nevada and (2) that the attorney associate an active
seeks in forma pauperis status pursuant to LSR 1-1 in asking the Court to
waive LR IA 11-2(b)’s admission fee. (ECF No. 73 at 3) However, LSR 1-1 addresses a
plaintiff’s initial filing fee, not the admission fee imposed pursuant to LR IA 11-2(b) in
connection with an attorney’s request to appear in a particular case.
member in good standing with the State Bar of Nevada as attorney of record. (ECF No.
73 at 2-3.)
LR IA 11-2 establishes requirements for an attorney who is not a member of the
bar of this court to appear in a particular case by submitting “a verified petition only if the
[enumerated] requirements are met.” LR IA 11-2(a). LR IA 11-2(h) provides that the court
may grant or deny a petition to practice. The requirements that Kaplan asks the Court to
waive serve important goals, including preventing abuse by those who may attempt to
circumvent the State Bar of Nevada’s licensing requirements and ensuring that competent
counsel appear before the Court who are familiar with the Court’s local rules and practices
through affiliation with local counsel. For these reasons, Kaplan’s request that the Court
waive these requirements is denied. Kaplan may continue to represent himself, but he
will not be permitted to appear in this case on behalf of Defendants or Relief Defendants
without complying with LR IA 11-2.
Defendant’s alternative request that the Court dismiss Defendants and Relief
Defendants is also denied. Defendant cites to no authority to support his request. The
Court is not aware of any authority that would support dismissal of a defendant, whether
corporate or individual, because of that party’s claimed financial hardship to retain
It is therefore ordered that Defendant’s motion to represent Defendants and Relief
Defendants (ECF No. 73) is denied. Defendants and Relief Defendants who are
corporations or limited liability companies cannot appear pro se. See Licht v. Am. W.
Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994). They must therefore appear through retained
counsel by July 19, 2017. Failure to do so will result in default judgment being entered
against these Defendants and Relief Defendants.
DATED THIS 24th day of May 2017.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?