Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05022/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05022-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAGUAR ASSOCIATES GROUP,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C-07-5022 PVT

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON

MOTION TO DISMISS TO ALLOW

PLAINTIFF CORPORATION TO

OBTAIN COUNSEL OR FOR MR. 

FRANCE TO SUBSTANTIATE RIGHT

TO PROCEED IN INDIVIDUAL

CAPACITY

 In this action, Mr. Richard France filed a Complaint in Small Claims court on behalf of

Plaintiff Jaguar Associates Group (“JAG”).1

 On September 28, 2007, the USPS removed the

case to this Court. Defendant United States Postal Service (“USPS”) filed a motion to dismiss

based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The USPS argues that this court is without

jurisdiction because the United States Government has not waived its sovereign immunity for

claims of lost mail. On November 15, 2007, USPS filed a supplemental brief seeking dismissal

on the basis that Plaintiff Jaguar Associates Group (“JAG”) may not appear pro se in this court. 

Civil Local Rule 3-9(b) provides: “A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or

other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court.” Mr. France filed

Case 5:07-cv-05022-PVT Document 18 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 4
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

ORDER, page 2

the Opposition to the Motion to dismiss and has told defense counsel, Ms. Melissa K. Brown,

that he is not an attorney and does not intend to bring an attorney to the hearing on the motion to

dismiss. (Brown Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5). Accordingly, because a corporation may not appear without

counsel, if the claim is brought on behalf of JAG, JAG must appear through an attorney in order

to prosecute this case. 

On November 16, 2007, the Court ordered Mr. France to file a declaration clarifying the

nature of the claim. The Court required Mr. France to explain whether the claim is brought on

his own behalf or on the behalf of the JAG and, if the claim is on behalf of JAG, to state whether

JAG will appear through counsel. Mr. France timely filed a declaration. Mr. France first

requested that Local Rule 3-9(b) be waived to allow JAG to appear pro se. “It has been the law 

for the better part of two centuries, for example, that a corporation may appear in the federal

courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's

Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993), citing Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738, 745

(1824). Accordingly, the Court cannot waive the requirements of the Local Rule.

Mr. France next asks to be allowed to substitute in as Plaintiff, claiming a personal

interest because he is a member of JAG and has a direct financial interest in the outcome of this

case. In general, a corporation must bring suit itself for harms against the corporation. Mr.

France has not presented any authority to allow him to bring a claim that belongs to the

Corporation. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 allows for shareholders to bring suit on

behalf of the corporation only in limited circumstances where the Corporation has unfairly

refused to act. In order to proceed on behalf of JAG, Mr. France “must allege with specificity

facts with regard to each director” of JAG “from which it may be inferred that the particular

director could or could not be expected to fairly evaluate the claims” that Mr. France seeks to

prosecute in a derivative action on behalf of JAG. Lopes v. Vieira, 488 F.Supp.2d 1000, 1014 

(E.D.Cal. 2007). 

Finally, Mr. France seeks to continue the Motion to Dismiss until March of 2008 in

order

//

Case 5:07-cv-05022-PVT Document 18 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 4
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

 2Given the asserted lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the United States Government

has not waived sovereign immunity for claims for lost mail, the Court is skeptical that JAG will

be able to convince an attorney to take this case.

ORDER, page 3

//

//

 to find an attorney to represent JAG free of charge.2

 At this point, Mr. France has not

demonstrated that he has standing to represent JAG. Additionally, the case cannot be dismissed

against a corporate entity on substantive grounds when the corporate entity has not properly

appeared. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Motion to Continue the Hearing is GRANTED and the Motion is

continued to March 11, 2008;

2. Not later than February 26, 2008, Mr. France shall file a declaration either

stating that JAG has found counsel or demonstrating his standing to sue as

an individual on behalf of JAG; and

3. If Mr. France cannot demonstrate that he has standing or that JAG has

obtained counsel, this lawsuit will be dismissed for lack of standing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: December 12, 2007

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-05022-PVT Document 18 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER, page 4

copies mailed on 12/12 to:

Jaguar Associate Group 

c/o Richard H. France 

22860 Old Santa Cruz Highway 

Los Gatos, CA 95033 

/s/ Carolyn Frantz for 

 _______________________________ CORINNE LEW

 Courtroom Deputy 

Case 5:07-cv-05022-PVT Document 18 Filed 12/12/07 Page 4 of 4