Charman v. U.S.A. Home Inspectors

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THANE CHARMAN, Case No.: 3:23-cv-352-WQH-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER v. U.S.A. HOME INSPECTORS, a California limited liability company, Defendant.

18 HAYES, Judge: 19 The matter before the Court is the Court’s Order to Show Cause regarding Defendant Keith Klinger’s purported pro se representation of Defendant U.S.A. Home Inspectors, a limited liability company.

22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On February 23, 2023, Plaintiff Thane Charman (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint (ECF No. 1) asserting claims against Defendants U.S.A. Home Inspectors and Keith Klinger (“Klinger”). On May 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative “[First] Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 9.) On June 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant[s].” (ECF No. 21.) On July 8, 2024, Klinger filed a “Reply to [the] Motion for Default Judgment.” (ECF No. 23.) On July 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Reply to Reply to Motion for Default Judgment.” (ECF No. 24.) On August 12, 2024, Klinger, proceeding pro se, filed an “Amended Reply to Motion for Default Judgment” (“Amended Reply”), which included a filing entitled “Answer and Counterclaim” purporting to present arguments on behalf of both Klinger and U.S.A. Home Inspectors.

8 (ECF No. 27.)

9 On August 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice,” moving to dismiss Klinger without prejudice. (ECF No. 28.) On the same day, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Strike Amended Reply to Motion for Default Judgment” (“Motion to Strike”), requesting the Court strike Klinger’s Amended Reply (ECF No. 27) because, in relevant part, “Defendant USA Home Inspectors LLC is a limited liability company. Limited Liability companies [are] not allowed to appear pro se.” (ECF No. 29 at 7.)

16 On September 17, 2024, the Court issued an Order dismissing Klinger without prejudice. (ECF No. 30.)

18 On October 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Motion Allowing Plaintiff to File Second Amended Complaint” (“Motion for Leave to Amend”) seeking the Court’s permission to amend the Complaint to properly identify U.S.A. Home Inspectors as “U.S.A. Home Inspectors San Diego, LLC.” (ECF No. 31 at 1–3.)

22 II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 23 Generally, a pro se litigant may not “pursu[e] claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008); Although Plaintiff titled this pleading "Second Amended Complaint," he had not yet amended the Complaint prior to this filing. The Court accordingly refers to the operative pleading as the First Amended Complaint.

1 ||see also Vashisht-Rota v. Bluechip Servs., No. 3:22-cv-00900-RBM-KSC, 2023 WL 2 || 6064789, at * 1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2023) (finding that a pro se litigant could not litigate ||claims on behalf of her limited liability company); Tiger Constr. LLC v. Hous. Auth. of || City of L.A., No. CV2207792MWFDEM, 2022 WL 18397358, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2022) (same). “Thus, a limited liability company, like Defendant [U.S.A. Home Inspectors] 6 may appear in federal court only through a_ licensed attorney.”

7 ||G&G Closed Cir. Events LLC vy. Espinoza, No. CV-18-08216-PCT-JAT, 2019 WL 8 1858115, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 25, 2019) (citing Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit I || Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993)).

10 The Court has dismissed Klinger. (See ECF No. 30.) The Court may not consider 11 of Klinger’s pro se filings to the extent they were intended to present arguments on ||behalf of U.S.A. Home Inspectors. Should U.S.A. Home Inspectors wish to present || arguments to the Court, it must do so through counsel.

14 Accordingly, the Court will stay the proceedings for thirty (30) days from the entry || of this Order, providing U.S.A. Home Inspectors with time to retain an attorney and instruct || the attorney to enter a notice of appearance in this action. If no notice of appearance is filed || on behalf of U.S.A. Home Inspectors within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order, the |}Court shall rule on the pending Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 21), Motion to || Strike (ECF No. 27), and Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 31) without considering || Klinger’s arguments on behalf of U.S.A. Home Inspectors in his pro se filings. The Clerk 21 Court shall serve a copy of this Order on Klinger.

22 Dated: November 12, 2024 Nitta Z. A a 23 Hon, William Q. Hayes 4 United States District Court