Li v. Lin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA XIAOLEI LI, et al.,

Case No.: 2:21-cv-01524-JAD-NJK

Plaintiffs,

Order v.

[Docket No. 27, 30]

DAVID S. LIN,

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant to seek competent counsel. Docket No. 27. Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court requiring Defendant, who is proceeding pro se, to associate with competent counsel. Id. at 5-6. The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ motion and Defendant’s response1. Docket Nos. 27, 29. No reply is necessary. This matter is properly resolved without a hearing. Local Rule 78-1.

Parties have the right to conduct their cases pro se. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. See also Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 522 (2007)) (“[T]here is no question that a party may represent his or her own interests in federal court without the aid of counsel.”); Simmon v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co., 543 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008). This right is fundamental and can only be constricted in limited circumstances. See e.g., Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Off. Of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2007) (while an attorney has the right to proceed pro se in actions related to his own legal interests, there is no pro se right to prosecute actions on behalf of others);

1 Defendant captions his response as both an objection to Plaintiffs’ motion and a request to strike the underlying motion. Docket Nos. 29, 30. To the extent Defendant seeks to strike the motion, the Court DENIES his request, Docket No. 30, and considers the underlying motion to compel on its merits.

1} Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1989) (Court can appoint counsel for a pro se party when party is incompetent to protect self throughout the litigation).

Defendant, who is a licensed attorney in another state, is proceeding pro se in this matter. See Stoner, 502 F.3d at 1125-26 (right to proceed pro se set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1654 extends to

5] attorneys representing themselves in their own personal cases). Plaintiffs ask the Court to require Defendant to hire counsel, rather than proceed pro se, because they disagree with some of the factual submissions and legal authorities Defendant relied on in a recent filing. Docket No. 27. This factual disagreement does not constitute an adequate ground to infringe on a party’s right to proceed pro se. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant to seek

10] competent counsel. Docket No. 27.

1] IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2021

Date St □□ gistrate Judge