Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01129/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01129-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2410 Quiet Title

---

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

 The court notes that one named Plaintiff appears to be a corporation. It appears this

1

corporation is not represented by an attorney, and it is either being represented by another

Plaintiff in this action who is appearing in propria persona or representing itself through its

director. “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other

than himself [or herself].” Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9 Cir.1962). Non-attorney th

litigants may not represent others. Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9

th

Cir.1997); Church of the New Testament v. United States, 783 F.2d 771, 774 (9 Cir. 1986). An th

individual cannot represent a corporation, and a corporation cannot represent itself as a pro se

plaintiff. Local Rule 83-183(a); see also Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194,

202 (1993). Thus, Acacia Corporate Management, LLC must obtain an attorney forthwith.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ACACIA CORPORATE )

MANAGEMENT, LLC, MICHAEL )

IOANE, ) 

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1: 07 - CV - 01129 AWI GSA

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT AS MOOT AND

MOTION TO CONTINUE AS

MOOT

(Documents #21, #22, & #32)

On October 9, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment pursuant to Rule 54 of the 1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against several Defendants, and several Defendants have filed

oppositions to this motion. On October 12, 2007, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On

October 19, 2007, Defendant United States requested additional time in which to oppose

Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment.

The complaint on which Plaintiffs seek partial judgment is no longer the operative

pleading in this action. An amended complaint supercedes the original complaint. Forsyth v.

Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9 Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9 Cir. th th

Case 1:07-cv-01129-AWI-EPG Document 35 Filed 10/29/07 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

1987). An amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or

superceded pleading.” Local Rule 15-220. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Because Plaintiffs’ motion for

partial judgment seeks judgment on a complaint that is no longer the operative pleading in this

file, Plaintiffs’ motion has become moot.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for partial judgment is DENIED as moot; and

2. Defendant United States’ motion for addition time to oppose the motion is

DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01129-AWI-EPG Document 35 Filed 10/29/07 Page 2 of 2