Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01733/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01733-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Coast Investment Group, LLC; BJ Gunner

Investments LLC; Coast Investments

Group, LLC, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Arizona Department of Housing; Michael

Trailor, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1733-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On August 24, 2009, the Judge to whom this case was previously assigned ordered

that this case would be dismissed if Plaintiffs failed to obtain an attorney; the Judge ordered

Plaintiffs to obtain counsel because limited liability companies can not appear in state court

without an attorney (state court being where the complaint was originally filed). See Doc.

#7 at 2. The same is true in federal court. See D-Beam Ltd. P'ship v. Roller Derby Skates,

Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004). Consistent with state law, the Judge ordered that

Plaintiffs would be given an opportunity to obtain an attorney. Specifically, the Judge

ordered that Plaintiffs had to obtain an attorney and that the attorney had to file an amended

complaint on their behalf by September 11, 2009, or Defendants’ motion to dismiss the

complaint due to the lack of an attorney would be granted. Doc. #7 at 4.

Case 2:09-cv-01733-JAT Document 20 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Plaintiffs did not obtain an attorney by September 11, 2009 and instead moved this

Court for an extension of time to obtain an attorney (Doc. #12). On September 28, 2009, the

Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time up and until October 13, 2009

(Doc. # 15). On October 13, Michael Letzt, filed an amended complaint pro se. Letzt named

only himself as plaintiff, dropping the previous plaintiffs Coast Investment Group, LLC, and

BJ Gunner Investments, LLC. With regard to the initially filed complaint, only Coast

Investment Group, LLC, and BJ Gunner Investments, LLC, were named as plaintiffs, and not

Letzt.

On October 21, 2009, Defendants moved to strike the amended complaint. Neither

Letzt or the initially named Plaintiffs have responded to Defendants’ motion. After

reviewing Defendants’ motion, the Court agrees that Letzt’s amended complaint is improper.

Plaintiffs were warned repeatedly that, because they are limited liability companies,

they must be represented by counsel in order to appear in federal court. Letzt recognized this

problem, but rather than hiring an attorney to represent the limited liability companies, Letzt

substituted himself as the named plaintiff–even though he was not a named plaintiff in the

original complaint–and omitted the only two previously named plaintiffs. Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 15 make clear that only parties to an action may amend a pleading. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a) (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course . . . .”). Letzt

is, and never has been, a party to this action. To the extent Letzt was seeking to file an

amended complaint on behalf of the limited liability companies, as has been reiterated

throughout the proceedings, such an effort fails because Letzt is not an attorney. To the

extent Letzt was seeking to file an amended complaint on behalf of himself, he is precluded

from doing so because he is not a party to this action. As such, he was not authorized to file

an amended complaint in this action. Because Letzt was not authorized to file an amended

complaint, the Court strikes the amended complaint at Doc. # 16.

Plaintiffs have not hired counsel nor filed a proper amended complaint within the

deadlines entered by this Court. As the Court stated in its September 28 Order: “If Plaintiffs

fail to obtain counsel within the deadlines set below, the Court will grant the motion to

Case 2:09-cv-01733-JAT Document 20 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 3
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 -

dismiss (Doc. #2) without further notice to Plaintiffs and without oral argument.” (Doc. # 15)

The Court again repeated: “if Plaintiffs fail to obtain counsel within these deadlines,

Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted.” (Id.) As such, the Court now dismisses

Plaintiffs’ action.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike “Amended Complaint” Filed by

Mr. Letzt on Behalf of Corporate Plaintiffs (Doc. # 18) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall strike the document

contained at Doc. # 16, titled “Amended Complaint Verified Complaint.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this case without prejudice.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

DATED this 5th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01733-JAT Document 20 Filed 04/05/10 Page 3 of 3