SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants Reuven Ben-Zvi, Samuel Pak, and Soon W. Choi appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Briccetti, J.), denying plaintiffs-appellants’ motion to amend the complaint and granting defendants-appellees’ motion to dismiss. The appellants challenge the validity of a release signed by Choi and *3 Pak in 1999, as well as a final arbitration award issued by Judge Colin P. Campbell in 2010 finding that release to be valid, binding, and enforceable. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We now take the unusual action of dismissing this appeal nostra sponte.

The only two plaintiffs in this litigation are Samuel Pak and Soon W. Choi; the allegations in the complaint do not involve Reuven Ben-Zvi at all. Nor is he listed as a party in the complaint. It is clear, then, that Ben-Zvi’s only role is to represent Pak and Choi in some manner or capacity. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed as to Ben-Zvi.

Ben-Zvi’s involvement in this appeal creates an additional complication. It is at best unclear whether Ben-Zvi is licensed to practice law in the United States. More to the point, Ben-Zvi’s notice of appearance does not certify that he is admitted to practice before this Court, and, indeed, a review of this Court’s internal database confirms that he is not. Consequently, Ben-Zvi has no authority to represent Choi and Pak in this litigation. See Local Rule 46.1(a); see also Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1308 (2d Cir. 1991) (“[28 U.S.C. § 1654] does not allow for unlicensed laymen to represent anyone else other than themselves.”) (citation omitted).

Choi and Pak signed the notice of appeal and could have prosecuted their appeal pro se. Alternatively, they could have retained a lawyer admitted to appear before this Court. Instead, they chose Ben-Zvi to represent them. Purportedly acting as their “attorney-in-fact,” Ben-Zvi has listed himself as lead counsel of record and has made multiple filings on Choi and Pak’s behalf. Because these filings were made by a non-party to this litigation who has no authority to appear before this Court in a representative capacity, they will be stricken from the record.

It follows that Choi and Pak have failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and our Local Rules requiring parties to file conforming briefs in a timely fashion. See, e.g., Fed. R.App. P. 31; Local Rule 31.2(d). As a result, their appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute.

For the foregoing reasons, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. All pending motions are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.