Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02560/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02560-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Susan Hughes, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

PAL L.L.C.; Ardys O’Brien; 

Paul Hallowell; Laura Hallowell, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-03-2560-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider the Court's July 14,

2005, Order and/or Motion for Rule 60 Relief; (2) Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion to

Reconsider the Court's July 14, 2005, Order and/or Motion for Rule 60 Relief; (3) Plaintiff's

Expedited Motion to Withdraw Motion for Leave to Amend and First Amended Complaint;

and (4) Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Reinstate Prior Default. Docketing has docketed all

of the motions as doc. # 59. The Court now rules on the pending motions.

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 3, 2005, Defendants Paul and Laura Hallowell filed a Motion to Dismiss. On

June 10, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint and

lodged her First Amended Complaint. On June 21, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to

Strike the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. 

Case 2:03-cv-02560-JAT Document 61 Filed 10/20/05 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

- 2 -

On July 14, 2005, the Court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend, Ordered the Plaintiff

to serve the Defendants with her Amended Complaint, vacated PAL L.L.C.'s entry of default,

and denied as moot: (1) the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment; (2) the Defendants'

Motion to Dismiss; and (3) the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. 

The Plaintiff now asks the Court to: (1) reconsider and vacate its July 14, 2005, Order;

(2) reinstate the entry of default against PAL L.L.C.; (3) permit the Plaintiff to withdraw her

Motion for Leave to Amend and First Amended Complaint; (4) reinstate the Plaintiff's

original Complaint; and (5) reinstate and grant the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment

against PAL L.L.C.

II. DISCUSSION

The Plaintiff asks for relief from this Court's Order pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff contends that the Court erred in applying the law to

the facts of this case. Specifically, she argues that: (1) the Court should not have considered

Defendant Paul Hallowell's Motion to Dismiss as a responsive pleading to the Plaintiff's

Amended Complaint and; (2) the Court should not have held that Paul Hallowell appeared

on behalf of PAL L.L.C. because Defendant Paul Hallowell is not an attorney. The Plaintiff

argues that, as a matter of law, Paul Hallowell cannot appear on behalf of PAL L.L.C., Licht

v. Am. W. Airlines, 430 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court agrees.

Corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an

attorney. D-Beam Ltd. P'ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir.

2004). The reason that these entities cannot be represented by a pro-se litigant is because a

non-attorney's privilege to appear on his own behalf is a privilege that is personal to himself.

Pope Equity Trust v. Stradley, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). A pro-se litigant has no

authority to appear on behalf of, or represent, others. Id. 

A limited liability corporation is similar in many respects to a partnership. Although

the shareholders to a corporation have no ownership interest in the assets of a corporation,

partners own the assets of a partnership. Magneson v. C.I.R., 753 F.2d 1490, 1493 (9th Cir.

1985). Reasoning that each partner has a personal interest in partnership assets, the court in

Case 2:03-cv-02560-JAT Document 61 Filed 10/20/05 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

- 3 -

United States v. Reeves, 413 F.2d 1187, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 1970), held that a non-attorney

managing partner could appear on behalf of the partnership because he was in fact pleading

his own case. However, after the United States Supreme Court criticized Reeves and similar

cases as "aberrations," the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made it clear that Reeves was no

longer good law to the extent that it stood for the proposition that non-attorney members of

a partnership can represent the partnership as a pro-se litigant. Licht, 40 F.3d at 1059

(holding that Rowland v. Cal. Mens Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721(1993)

overrules United States v. Reeves, 413 F.2d 1187, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 1970)). 

Paul Hallowell is a named Defendant in this action. Therefore, he does have the

authority to appear and file motions and/or pleadings on his own behalf. However, he does

not have the authority to appear or file motions or pleadings on behalf of PAL L.L.C.,

OASIS Plant Rentals, or any other person or corporate entity. Accordingly, it was error for

this Court to hold that Paul Hallowell's Motion to Dismiss constituted an appearance on

behalf of PAL L.L.C.

The Plaintiff's motion was filed within a reasonable amount of time following the

entry of this Court's Order. Additionally, the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration sets forth

facts and law of a strongly convincing nature that demonstrates why this Court should

reverse, in part, its previous ruling. Accordingly, the Court will grant the requested relief

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Court’s July 14, 2005, Order is vacated to the extent

that it erroneously held that PAL, L.L.C. has appeared in this action by filing a motion to

dismiss or insinuates that Paul Hallowell has the authority to represent anyone other than

himself in this action. The Court's July 14, 2005, Order is affirmed in all other respects. 

The Plaintiff has not presented any good reason why her Amended Complaint should

be stricken and the original Complaint reinstated. Therefore, the Plaintiff's request to

withdraw her Motion to Amend, strike the Amended Complaint, and reinstate the original

Complaint is denied. 

Finally, the Court will deny the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Default. It was an

error of this Court to allow Paul Hallowell to appear on behalf of PAL L.L.C. as well as

Case 2:03-cv-02560-JAT Document 61 Filed 10/20/05 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

- 4 -

himself. PAL L.L.C. should now have a reasonable opportunity to correct that defect by

obtaining an attorney and filing its own responsive pleading. 

Should PAL L.L.C. fail to obtain counsel and timely respond to the Plaintiff's

Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff may apply for default and move for default judgment at

that time. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART the

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration (doc.

59). The Court’s July 14, 2005, Order is VACATED to the narrow extent that it held that

PAL, L.L.C. has appeared in this action or insinuated that Paul Hallowell had the authority

to represent or appear on behalf of anyone other than himself and AFFIRMED in all other

respects. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to

Withdraw Motion for Leave to Amend and First Amended Complaint (doc. 59).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to

Reinstate Prior Default (doc. 59).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Paul Hallowell only has the authority to represent

himself in this matter. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED PAL L.L.C. has 30 days from the date that this Order

is filed to obtain counsel and file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED if PAL L.L.C. fails to file a responsive pleading to

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint through counsel on or before 30 days after this Order is filed,

Plaintiff shall file an application for default and the Clerk of the Court shall enter default

against PAL L.L.C. 

DATED this 18th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-02560-JAT Document 61 Filed 10/20/05 Page 4 of 4