Opinion
No. C 13-01079 JSW
12-19-2013
METHVEN AND ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORTATION, Plaintiff, v. SCARLETT PARADIES-STROUD, as administrator of the ESTATE OF ANDREW B. STROUD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS AND REVOKING PRO HAC VICE STATUS
On December 5, 2013, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") to Mr. Robinson, counsel for Scarlett Paradies-Stroud ("Paradies-Stroud") as the administrator of the Estate of Andrew B. Stroud ("Stroud Estate"), Andy Stroud, Inc. ("ASI"), and Stroud Productions and Enterprises, Inc. ("SPE") (collectively referred to as "Stroud Defendants") as to why he should not be personally sanctioned in the amount of $5,000 and why his pro hac vice status on behalf of the Stroud Defendants should not be revoked. The Court has repeatedly admonished Mr. Robinson to abide by the Standards of Professional Conduct set forth in Civil Local Rule 11-4, which include "practic[ing] with the honesty, care, and decorum required for the fair and efficient administration of justice" and "discharg[ing] his ... obligations to his ... client and the Court." In his response to the OSC, Mr. Robinson takes absolutely no responsibility for any of his actions and shows no contrition. Based on his failure to do so, the Court has no assurance that Mr. Robinson will stop making statements in court filings that are at best disingenuous, that Mr. Robinson will practice with care, or that he will comply with Court Orders and the Local Rules.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY imposes sanctions against Mr. Robinson in the amount of $5,000, to be paid by him personally by no later than January 6, 2014 and REVOKES Mr. Robinson's pro hac vice status. Mr. Robinson shall serve a copy of this Order on Paradies-Stroud as the administrator of the Stroud Estate, ASI, and SPE by no later than December 23, 2013 and shall file a proof of such service by no later than December 27, 2013. Mr. Robinson is directed to attach a copy of this Order to any future pro hac vice application in this district court. ASI and SPE are corporations and, thus, cannot represent themselves. See Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); Civil Local Rule 3-9(b). ASI and SPE shall obtain new counsel and have such new counsel file an appearance by January 17, 2014.
With respect to Paradies-Stroud, it is not yet clear whether she may proceed pro se or must retain counsel in order to appear on behalf of the estate of Andrew B. Stroud. An attorney must represent a personal representative of an estate where the estate has multiple beneficiaries and creditors. See Simon v. Harford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir.2008) ("... courts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity"); Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391, 393 (2nd Cir. 1997); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (a claimant "must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties") (quotation omitted); see also C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir. 1987) (trustee attempting to represent a trust pro se was not, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1654, a "party" conducting his "own case personally" as he was not the beneficial owner of the claims being asserted).
Paradies-Stroud is Ordered to Show Cause in writing whether she intends to appear pro se or through new counsel. If she intends to proceed pro se, she must demonstrate that she is the sole beneficiary to the estate of Andrew Stroud and that there are no other beneficiaries or creditors. Paradies-Stroud shall provide this statement, and supporting evidence, by no later than January 17, 2014. If she intends to obtain new counsel, such counsel shall file an appearance by January 17, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________
JEFFREY S. WHITE
united states district judge