Opinion
EDCV 22-00107 CJC (RAO)
01-20-2022
Chen Gu Shen v. J. Frias et al.
Present: The Honorable ROZELLA A. OLIVER, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This case was initiated on January 18, 2022. A Complaint was filed on behalf of Chen Gu Shen against four officers from the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department and San Bernardino Code Enforcement. Dkt. No. 1. The Complaint is signed by Phillip Lai. Id. at 6. Although Phillip Lai signs the Complaint under the section “For Attorneys, ” there is no bar number listed and it does not appear that Phillip Lai is an attorney. Chen Gu Shen is listed as the plaintiff on the Civil Cover Sheet, but that document is also signed by Phillip Lai. Dkt. No. 1-1.
The Court takes judicial notice of the California state bar records, available at https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Public, which indicate that there is no California-barred attorney named Phillip Lai. See White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that state bar records were appropriate for judicial notice).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) (“Rule 11(a)”), every pleading must be signed by either an attorney of record or by a party personally if a party is unrepresented. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a). “The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.” Id.
Here, the Complaint violates Rule 11(a). The signer Phillip Lai is not an attorney, and, to the extent Plaintiff Chen Gu Shen would like to proceed pro se (without an attorney), the Complaint must be signed by Plaintiff Chen Gu Shen personally. See Ko v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., No. C-13-00890-RMW, 2013 WL 3338596, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2013) (finding signature of the plaintiff's husband, who was neither a party nor an attorney authorized to represent the plaintiff, did not satisfy Rule 11(a)). The Court must strike the Complaint unless this error is “promptly corrected.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a).
To the extent Phillip Lai is attempting to bring an action on Plaintiff Chen Gu Shen's behalf, a non-attorney may not prosecute a federal action on behalf of another party. See Johns v. Cty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] non-lawyer has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” (internal punctuation omitted)).
Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing, no later than February 21, 2022, why the Complaint should not be stricken pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). Alternatively, Plaintiff may discharge this Order by re-filing the Complaint with the proper signature.
Plaintiff is expressly advised that failure to timely file a response to this Order will result in the striking of the Complaint and dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.