CAPUTO v. FORCENO

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS LETTER MOTION FOR RECONSIDERTION IS GRANTED IN PART UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS: TO THE EXTENT PLAINTIFF SEEKS ADDITIONAL TIME TO PAY THE $400 IN FEES NECESSARY TO COMMENCE THIS LITIGATION, HER MOTION IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF MUST REMIT $400 TO THE CLERK OF COURT BY 5/26/15. TO THE EXTENT PLAINTIFF SEEKS RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURTS DENIAL OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, HER MOTION IS DENIED. IF PLAINTIFF SEEKS TO PROCEED WITH ANY CLAIMS BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF HER FATHER'S ESTATE, SHE MUST BY 5/26/15 EITHER A) OBTAIN COUNSEL WHO ENTERS AN APPEARANCE FOR THE ESTATE OR B) FILE A DECLARATION SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY SWEARING THAT THE ESTATE HAS NO CREDITORS AND THAT OTHER BENEFICIARIES HAVE DISCL AIMED THEIR INTEREST HER FATHERS ESTATE IN WRITING AND THAT SHE IS THE SOLE BENEFICIARY. IF PLAINTIFF SEEKS TO AMEND HER INITIAL DESIGNATION FORM, SHE MAY FILE AN AMENDED DESIGNATION FORM ON OR BEFORE 5/26/15.SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARK A. KEARNEY ON 5/5/15. 5/5/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROSE MARIE CAPUTO
ADMINISTRATIX OF THE ESTATE
OF ROBERT ADAM CAPUTO

CIVIL ACTION

v.
RAYMOND P. FORCENO

NO. 15-1911
ORDER-MEMORANDUM

AND NOW, this 5th day of May 2015, upon consideration of Plaintiffs letter motion for
reconsideration (ECF Doc. No. 3), It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED in
part upon certain conditions:
1.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks additional time to pay the $400 in fees necessary to

commence this litigation, her motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff must remit $400 to the Clerk of
Court by May 26, 2015. To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's denial of in
forma pauperis status, her motion is DENIED.

2.

If Plaintiff seeks to proceed with any claims brought on behalf of her father's

estate, she must, by May 26, 2015, either (a) obtain counsel who enters an appearance for the
estate; or, (b) file a declaration signed under penalty of perjury swearing that the estate has no
creditors and that the other beneficiaries have disclaimed their interest her father's estate in
writing and that she is the sole beneficiary.
3.

If Plaintiff seeks to amend her initial designation form, she may file an amended

designation form on or before May 26, 2015.

Analysis
Plaintiff Rose Marie Caputo, a non-attorney proceeding pro se, initiated this action by
filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint against Raymond P.
Forceno. Ms. Caputo claims that Forceno, an attorney for the estate of her father, Robert Adam
Caputo, of which Ms. Caputo is the administratix, committed legal malpractice and/or breached
his fiduciary duty by withholding money owed to the estate from a settlement. Although Ms.
Caputo primarily raises claims in her capacity as administratrix of her father's estate, it appears
she may also be raising claims in her individual capacity.
On April 17, 2015, we denied Ms. Caputo's leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
Doc. No. 2). As a non-attorney proceeding prose, she may not prosecute claims on behalf of the
estate in the event the estate has other beneficiaries. Ms. Caputo's timely wrote to the Court
requesting additional time to pay the filing fee and asking whether she may proceed on behalf of
the estate if the other beneficiaries sign waivers "admonishing any further interest in the Estate"
or attesting "that no legal action would be ensued on their parts against any of the parties
involved."

Ms. Caputo would also like to amend the designation form she filed with her

complaint.
Although individuals who are not attorneys may prosecute "their own cases" pro se in
federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1654, "[t]he federal courts 'have routinely adhered to the
general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a
representative capacity."' Gunn v. Credit Suisse Grp. AG, --- F. App'x ---, 2015 WL 1787011,
at *2 (3d Cir. Apr. 21, 2015) (per curiam) (quoting Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661,
664-65 (9th Cir. 2008)); see also Osie-Afriyie ex rel. Osie-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d
876, 878 (3d Cir. 1991) ("[A] parent who is not an attorney must be represented by legal counsel

2

in bringing an action on behalf of his or her minor children."). Even a power of attorney is
insufficient to overcome that prohibition. See Williams v. United States, 477 F. App'x 9, 11 (3d
Cir. 2012) (per curiam) ("Faison Williams's power of attorney for her father may confer certain
decision-making authority under state law, but it does not permit her to represent him pro se in
federal court.").
Federal courts generally will only permit a non-attorney to proceed pro se in her capacity
as the administratrix of an estate when she is the sole beneficiary and the estate has no creditors.

Compare Johnson v. Marberry, 549 F. App'x 73, 75 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (prose litigant
could not prosecute claims on behalf of estate/heirs); Malone v. Nielson, 474 F.3d 934, 937 (7th
Cir. 2007) (per curiam) ("[I]f the administrator is not the sole beneficiary of the estate, then he or
she may not represent the estate in court."); Jones ex rel. Jones v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 401
F.3d 950, 952 (8th Cir. 2005) ("'[W]hen an estate has beneficiaries or creditors other than the
administratrix or executrix, the action cannot be described as the litigant's own, because the
personal interests of the estate, other survivors, and possible creditors will be affected by the
outcome of the proceedings."' (quoting Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391, 393 (2d Cir. 1997)
(alteration in original))) with Guest v. Hansen, 603 F.3d 15, 17 (2d Cir. 2010) ("[A]n
administrator can proceed pro se where an estate has neither creditors nor beneficiaries other
than the administrator.").
If the beneficiaries of Robert Adam Caputo's estate fully and finally relinquish their

interests in writing such that Ms. Caputo is the sole remaining beneficiary, and provided that the
estate has no creditors, Ms. Caputo is permitted to proceed prose as administratix of her father's
estate as the sole party in interest. See Guest, 603 F.3d at 19-21. Alternatively, the case may
proceed on behalf of all of the beneficiaries if Ms. Caputo retains counsel.

3