Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-68/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

HENRY WILLMS, et al, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1: 02-CV-6583 AWI SMS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SETASIDE ORDER AT DOCUMENT 664,

DISMISSING ENTITY PLAINTIFFS

ORDER BARRING ANY FURTHER

APPEARANCE BY “SPECIALLY

APPEARING” ATTORNEYS

(Document #678)

On September 21, 2007, Attorney David F. Brown, stating that he is specially appearing

for Plaintiffs Estates in Eagle Ridge, LLP, James C. Bateman Petroleum Services, and EnviroSafe, Inc. (“Entity Plaintiffs”), filed a motion to set-aside Document 664, which is the court’s

order dismissing Entity Plaintiffs from this action. Upon the parties’ stipulation, the court re-set

the hearing date, and then the court gave Attorney Brown additional time in which to file a reply

brief. This motion is currently under submission, and the court now issues this memorandum

opinion.

BACKGROUND

On April 19, 2007, the court granted Attorney Anthony Capozzi’s motion to withdraw

from representing Plaintiffs. This order left all Plaintiffs, including Entity Plaintiffs, without

counsel. 

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 703 Filed 02/14/08 Page 1 of 7
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

On April 26, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint by Entity

Plaintiffs or to strike their claims from the complaint because Entity Plaintiffs are no longer

represented by counsel. This motion was originally set for hearing on June 4, 2007. Because

the court had not considered the impact on Entity Plaintiffs of allowing Attorney Capozzi to

withdraw from this action, on May 30, 2007, the court sua sponte continued the motion to

dismiss to July 9, 2007 because in earlier filings Plaintiffs had indicated they would have an

attorney by this date. On July 6, 2007, the court again sua sponte continued the hearing on

Defendants’ motion to dismiss to July 23, 2007 because Plaintiffs had indicated they would have

an attorney by this date. The July 6, 2007 order forewarned Entity Plaintiffs that if they were

not represented by counsel as of July 23, 2007, the court would grant Defendants’ motion and

dismiss Entity Plaintiffs from this action. On July 23, 2007, the court held a hearing. At the

hearing, Plaintiff Terry Hamilton stated that he was in discussions with attorneys to represent all

Plaintiffs in this case. The court then continued the motion to dismiss to July 30, 2007 to allow

Plaintiffs one more week to obtain counsel. The court warned Plaintiffs that if Entity Plaintiffs

were not represented by counsel at the July 30, 2007 hearing, the court would dismiss Entity

Plaintiffs. 

On July 30, 2007, the court held a second hearing. At this hearing Plaintiff Terry

Hamilton admitted that Entity Plaintiffs still did not have an attorney for all purposes. After

finding that Entity Plaintiffs needed an attorney of record and not merely an attorney to file

responses to current motions, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed

Entity Plaintiffs. On August 2, 2007, the court issued its memorandum opinion granting

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Entity Plaintiffs because they were not represented by counsel. 

On August 13, 2007, Plaintiff Terry Hamilton filed a motion to request the court alter or

amend the court’s order dismissing Entity Plaintiffs. On October 4, 2007, the court denied this

motion. 

On September 21, 2007, Attorney Brown, stating that he is specially appearing for Entity

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 703 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 7
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 3

Plaintiffs, filed a motion to set-aside the court’s order dismissing Entity Plaintiffs. On

November 21, 2007, Defendants filed an opposition to this motion along with a request for the

court to bar any further “special appearances” by attorneys. On January 2, 2008, Attorney Brown

filed a reply.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9 Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9 Cir.1992). th th

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make

new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9 Cir.1988). Reconsideration is not to be used to ask the th

court to rethink what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112,

1116 (D.Ariz.1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with

the Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before

rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” U.S. v. Westlands

Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Motions to reconsider are committed

to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir.

1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must

th

set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665

(E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1987). th

When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show the

“new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown

upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 

DISCUSSION

Attorney Brown, specially appearing on behalf of Entity Plaintiffs, contends that the court

erred in dismissing Entity Plaintiffs from this action because at the time the court dismissed

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 703 Filed 02/14/08 Page 3 of 7
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 4

Entity Plaintiffs they had filed a brief to the only outstanding motion. A review of the docket in

this action reveals that on July 25, 2007, Attorney Brown filed a document in which Attorney

Brown states he was: “Specially Appearing for [Entity Plaintiffs]”. This document is a reply

brief to Plaintiffs’ then pending motion to reconsider the court’s order enforcing a stipulation,

which had been filed by Attorney Capozzi on behalf of all Plaintiffs prior to Attorney Capozzi’s

withdrawal. Specifically, Attorney Brown argued on behalf of Entity Plaintiffs that Defendants

had not opposed the pending motion for reconsideration by Entity Plaintiffs, and as such, Entity

Plaintiffs were entitled to reconsideration.

Based on this filing, Attorney Brown now contends that Entity Plaintiffs had complied

with the court’s order to retain counsel to file a reply brief to the pending motion for

reconsideration. Attorney Brown argues that the court had only ordered Entity Plaintiffs to

obtain counsel for the pending motion for reconsideration and not for all purposes. Attorney

Brown is mistaken. Nothing in the court’s May 30, 2007 written order or July 6, 2007 written

order, which sua sponte continued the hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Entity Plaintiffs,

indicated in any respect that Entity Plaintiffs only needed an attorney to specially appear on their

behalf for the pending motion for reconsideration and not for other purposes. Nothing that the

court said at either the July 23, 2007 court hearing or the July 30, 2007 court hearing could be

interpreted as the court stating that an attorney specially appearing on Entity Plaintiffs’ behalf for

one motion was sufficient to avoid dismissal. In fact, when Plaintiff Terry Hamilton pointed out

Attorney Brown had filed a reply on behalf of Entity Plaintiffs and this was the only motion

pending before the court, the court inquired into whether Attorney Brown was representing

Entity Plaintiffs for all proposes. When Plaintiff Terry Hamilton admitted he did not believe

Attorney Brown represented Entity Plaintiffs for all purposes, the court stated such an appearance

was not sufficient. Thus, the court never ordered or otherwise stated that if Entity Plaintiffs

found an attorney to represent them for only the pending motion for reconsideration it would be

sufficient to avoid dismissal.

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 703 Filed 02/14/08 Page 4 of 7
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 5

The court also disagrees with Attorney Brown’s argument that Entity Plaintiffs were

sufficiently represented because an attorney had filed a reply brief to the motion for

reconsideration. Contrary to Attorney Brown’s implied position, the only motion pending

before the court was not the motion for reconsideration. Also pending before the court was

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Entity Plaintiffs. No counsel representing Entity Plaintiffs in any

form filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss Entity Plaintiffs. The failure of any attorney

to file an opposition or appear in opposition to the motion to dismiss Entity Plaintiffs furthers the

court’s continuing finding that Entity Plaintiffs were not represented by an attorney as of the July

30, 2007 hearing, and the court had no choice but to dismiss them.

The court further finds that Attorney Brown’s position, that an entity party can proceed in

an action so long as an attorney specially appears each time a motion is filed, makes no practical

sense. It would be impossible to proceed with discovery, motions, or trial if neither the court nor

the opposing party knows what attorney will be representing an entity party for any given motion

or stage of the proceedings. Neither the opposing party nor the court would know who to serve

or contact. Absent some binding authority to the contrary, the court declines to find that an

entity party is properly represented if an attorney, or numerous attorneys, specially appear for an

entity party each time the entity party is required to file a document, respond to discovery, appear

in court, prepare for trial, or conduct trial. 

To the extent there is any confusion, the only way the court would find that it erred in

dismissing Entity Plaintiffs is if Entity Plaintiffs provided evidence that they did have an attorney

by no later than August 2, 2007. Attorney Brown does not even argue that he was representing

Entity Plaintiffs for all purposes as of August 2, 2007, let alone provide a declaration or other

evidence of this fact. A non-lawyer may not represent entities, such as a corporation,

partnership, or associations. Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993). 

Because as of August 2, 2007, Entity Plaintiffs were only represented by other Plaintiffs

proceeding in pro se, the court had no choice but to dismiss Entity Plaintiffs. The court gave

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 703 Filed 02/14/08 Page 5 of 7
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

 For example, the Clerk of the Court has added some of the specially appearing 1

attorneys to this court’s proof of service. This action by the Clerk of the Court has caused at

least Plaintiff Terry Hamilton to contend that these attorneys are appearing for Entity Plaintiffs

for all purposes.

6

Entity Plaintiffs considerable time to obtain new counsel and warned Entity Plaintiffs on

numerous occasions that failure to obtain counsel would result in their dismissal. Thus,

Attorney Brown has given the court no reason to reverse its prior decision dismissing Entity

Plaintiffs.

Defendants have requested that the court make a formal order in this case prohibiting any

further appearances by any attorney in which that attorney “specially appears” for Plaintiffs. In

this action, several attorneys have appeared “specially” on behalf of various Plaintiffs for the

purpose of particular motions. No Local Rule or Rule of Civil Procedure specifically provides

for an attorney to “specially” appear for a party on one motion. While the court generally allows

such appearances, the court finds that the repeated use of specially appearing attorneys in this

action has created confusion and unnecessary work for the court, Clerk of the Court, and

Defendants. Neither the court, Clerk of the Court, or Defendants know who to serve with

motions and court orders or contact regarding pending issues. Thus, the court will preclude any 1

further “special” appearances by an attorney for one particular motion, hearing, or other purpose.

Finally, the court notes that in the final sentence of Attorney Brown’s reply brief,

Attorney Brown asks that the court certify that the court’s August 2, 2007 order, Document #664,

which dismissed Entity Plaintiffs, be considered final for purposes of appeal. Rule 54(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for the entry of final judgment with respect to less than

all parties or claims in an action if the court makes “an express determination that there is no just

reason for delay” and expressly directs “entry of judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Because Rule

54(b) requires the court to make specific findings, the court resolves Rule 54(b) requests by

noticed motion, allowing all parties to provide their positions to the court. Thus, the court will

not enter final judgment at this time. 

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 703 Filed 02/14/08 Page 6 of 7
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 7

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Attorney Brown’s motion for reconsideration, in which he states he is

specially appearing for Entity Plaintiffs, is DENIED;

2. Any further appearance by attorneys appearing “specially” for any party is

HEREBY PROHIBITED;

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on:

Terry D. Hamilton Sharon M. Hamilton

1502 Westbrook Court 1502 Westbrook Court

Modesto, CA 95358 Modesto, CA 95358

David F. Brown

719 14 Street th

Modesto, CA 95354

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 703 Filed 02/14/08 Page 7 of 7