Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08213/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08213-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Regina Lynn Villone; Richard Rodriguez

(husband), 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

United Parcel Services, Inc., etc.; et al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8213-PCT-LOA

ORDER

Upon review of the Complaint, it is unclear whether pro se Plaintiff Regina L.

Villone is bringing this action on behalf of herself only or on behalf of herself and her

husband. The caption of the Complaint identifies two Plaintiffs and the first paragraph states:

“Plaintiff, Regina L. Villone and Richard Rodriguez (husband), In Propria Persona, allege

as follows.” (docket # 1) The body of the Complaint, however, appears to allege claims only

as to Plaintiff, Regina L. Villone and not her husband, Richard Rodriguez. (Id. at 2)

PRACTICE OF LAW

Generally, Arizona does not permit non-lawyers to practice law on behalf of

other individuals or corporations in a judicial proceeding. See, Rule 31(a)(2)(A)(3) and (b),

Ariz. R. Sup.Ct. While a natural person can always appear pro per and represent herself, she

may not represent her husband if she is a non-lawyer. Encinas v. Mangum, 203 Ariz. 357,

54 P.3d 826, (Ariz.Ct.App. 2002) (citing Haberkorn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 5 Ariz.App.

Case 3:09-cv-08213-LOA Document 5 Filed 12/09/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

397, 399, 427 P.2d 378, 380 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1967) (non-lawyer husband may not represent

wife in a court of law, despite any community interest); Bloch v. Bentfield, 1 Ariz.App. 412,

417, 403 P.2d 559, 564 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1965) (non-lawyer plaintiff could represent self but

not co-plaintiff family members). 

 The District Court of Arizona follows Arizona law regarding the practice of

law. Marchant v. U.S. Collections West, Inc., 12 F. Supp.2d 1001, 1005 (D. Ariz. 1998).

There is no doubt that the filing of a complaint constitutes the “practice of law.” Consistent

with Arizona law, however, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is not automatically a nullity. Boydston

v. Strole Development Company, 193 Ariz. 47, 969 P.2d 653, 656 (Ariz. 1998). 

DISCUSSION

If Plaintiffs intend to allege a claim for Richard Rodriguez, Mr. Rodriguez will

need to sign an amended complaint and represent himself or Plaintiffs will be allowed a

reasonable opportunity to retain a lawyer, appropriately licensed to practice law in Arizona

and admitted to practice in this District Court, to file an Amended Complaint or Plaintiffs’

Complaint may be dismissed. If Plaintiff Regina L. Villone does not intend to allege a claim

for Richard Rodriguez, the caption of the Complaint will be corrected by subsequent order

or at the Rule 16 scheduling conference.

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED that if Plaintiffs intend to allege a claim for Richard

Rodriguez, Mr. Rodriguez shall sign an amended complaint and represent himself or

Plaintiffs shall retain a lawyer, appropriately licensed to practice law in Arizona and

admitted to practice in this District Court, who shall file an motion to amend the Complaint

on or before Friday, January 8, 2010.

DATED this 9th day of December, 2009.

Case 3:09-cv-08213-LOA Document 5 Filed 12/09/09 Page 2 of 2