Case ID: f-appx_632/html/0418-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael H. VARTANIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and York Hing Law, Plaintiff, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA for ALAMEDA COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-15097.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 28, 2016.
    Michael H. Vartanian, San Jose, CA, pro se.
    Kevin P. McLaughlin, Meyers Nave Ri-back Silver & Wilson, APLC, Oakland, CA, Danielle Adoración Lee, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel, State Bar of California Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael H. Vartanian appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing him as a plaintiff. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Vartanian as a plaintiff because, as a non-attorney, Vartanian cannot represent York Hing Law in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.... ”); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.1987) (“Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. [The non-attorney] ... has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” (internal citation omitted)).

Since Vartanian cannot represent Law in this action, and Law did not sign the notice of appeal, we do not consider any arguments regarding the district court’s dismissal of Law’s claims.

We do not consider Vartanian’s arguments regarding his next-of-friend status or associational standing because they were raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

Vartanian’s requests, set forth in his opening brief, are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.