Opinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00312-JAH-KSC. John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding.
Helen E. Ryan, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, San Diego, CA.
For TIMOTHY M. HYDEN, a California resident and as Trustee of the John and Christy Ryan Family Trust, MATTHEW S. TOTH, a California resident and as Attorney for the John and Christy Ryan Family Trust and as Attorney for Christine Babbitt, PEDDER, HESSELTINE, WALKER & TOTH LLP, a California limited liability partnership, CHRISTY BABBITT, a California resident and as Guardian Ad Litem of Jack Emory Ryan, R.J. COUGHLAN, a California resident, COUGHLAN, SEMMER, FITCH & POTT LLP, a California limited liability partnership, ALISA GRAY, an Arizona ressident, GRAY & FASSOLD PC, an Arizona professional corporation, LEE M. QUICK, a Virginia resident, LEE M. QUICK PC, a Virginia professional corporation, MARY T. MORGAN, a Virginia resident, COOPER, SPONG & DAVIS PC, a Virginia professional corporation, Defendants - Appellees: Harold Trimmer, Attorney, Couglin, Semmer, Fitch & Pott, LLP, San Diego, CA.
For MARK VRANJES, a California resident, GRIMM, VRANJES & GREER, L.L.P., a California limited liability partnership, BUTZ, DUNN, DESANTIS PC, a California professional corporation, Jeffrey F. Manzi, Defendants - Appellees: Douglas M. Butz, Attorney, Butz Dunn & Desantis, San Diego, CA.
Byron Hollins, Defendant - Appellee, Pro se, Calabasas, CA.
For HOLLINS & LEVY, LLP, a California limited liability partnership, DAVID R. RUBY, a Virginia resident, MCSWEENEY, CRUMP, CHILDRESS & TEMPLE PC, a Virginia professional corporation, Defendants - Appellees: Byron Hollins, Hollins & Levy LLP, Calabasas, CA.
BRUNO W. KATZ, a California resident, Defendant - Appellee, Pro se, San Diego, CA.
Harold Trimmer, Defendant - Appellee, Pro se, San Diego, CA.
For CHRISTOPHER B. LATHAM, a California resident, LAURA GRIMES, a California resident, KENNETH M. WHITEHURST, a Virginia resident, DEBERA F. CONLON, a Virginia resident, United States of America, Defendants - Appellees: Ernest Cordero Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of The U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA.
Douglas M. Butz, Defendant - Appellee, Pro se, San Diego, CA.
For COLLINS, COLLINS, MUIR & STEWART LLP, a California limited liability partnership, KELLY M. BARNHART, a Virginia resident, ROUSSOS, LASSITER, GLAZNER, MARCUS PLC, a Virginia public company, Defendants - Appellees: Howard Franco Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP, South Pasadena, CA.
Before: D.W. NELSON, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appellant Helen Ryan (" Helen" ) appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing her case without prejudice because a non-lawyer, Mykal Ryan (" Mykal" ), was representing her in violation of the local rules. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
" We review the district court's dismissal pursuant to its local rules for abuse of discretion. 'Only in rare cases will we question the exercise of discretion in connection with the application of local rules.'" Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal citation omitted) (per curiam).
Civil Rule 83.11 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California states:
Any person who is appearing propria persona, (without an attorney) (i.e. pro se) must appear personally for such purpose and may not delegate that duty to any other person, including husband or wife, or another party on the same side appearing without an attorney. Any person appearing propria persona is bound by these rules of court and by the Fed.R.Civ.P. or Fed. R. Crim.P., as appropriate. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal or judgment by default.
When determining what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law, we look to state law. In re Reynoso, 477 F.3d 1117, 1125 (9th Cir. 2007). Under California law, the practice of law " means more than just appearing in court," and extends to providing legal advice and preparing legal documents. Estate of Condon, 65 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1142, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 (1998).
The district court properly found that Mykal was effectively acting as Helen's counsel by drafting her pleadings and submissions, and by contacting the court on her behalf. Dismissing the case without prejudice was therefore appropriate.
AFFIRMED.