ZMH v. Wells Fargo Bank

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 ZMH, Case No. 19-cv-03739-DMR 8 Plaintiff, 9 y ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 WELLS FARGO BANK, 11 Defendant. a 12 Pro se minor Plaintiff ZMH filed a complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis || (IFP”). [Docket Nos. 1, 2.] The case was filed by his “next friend,” Regional Advocacy Group.

14 || “[A] ‘next friend’ who is neither an attorney nor represented by one may not bring a lawsuit on © || behalf of minor or incompetent plaintiffs.” Roe v. Suter, 165 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissing A 16 || complaint brought by a non-attorney “next friend” of minor plaintiffs); see also Johns v. Cty. of

3 17 || San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that “a parent or guardian cannot bring an 1g || action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer”). Here, Regional Advocacy Group || Purports to bring this action on behalf of Plaintiff, a minor. Nothing in the record indicates that || Regional Advocacy Group is a law firm or is represented by an attorney. Because Plaintiff is a || minor, his claims may only proceed if he is represented by qualified counsel.

09 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is ordered to respond in writing to explain why this case should not be dismissed. Plaintiffs response is due by September 30, 2019.

24 KS > IT IS SO ORDERED. KD 25 AY □□ S ORDERED | Dated: September 16, 2019 2["yr 1s S© 26 ~ < Ly 4 Rwit TE 28 United eS Magistrate J dge VT oS