Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00311/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00311-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF JOHN JAMES RYAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv311-LAB (RBB)

ORDER REQUIRING

vs. SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

TIMOTHY M. HYDEN, et al.,

Defendant.

On February 7, 2013, this action was removed from California state court on the

grounds that two Defendants were federal employees acting within the scope of their

employment at the time the events complained of happened. The U.S. Attorney provided the

required certification of this. Because the Federal Tort Claims Act provides the exclusive

remedy for negligent or wrongful acts or omissions under such circumstances, this Court

appears to have jurisdiction at least over those claims.

The Plaintiff, Estate of John James Ryan, purports to be proceeding pro se.

Regardless of California state courts’ rules and decisions on the permissibility of this, it is

impermissible in federal court for two reasons. First, an estate cannot act on its own; it must

act through its administrator. See, e.g., Lombardi v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2011 WL 294506, slip

op. at *4 (W.D.Pa. Jan. 27, 2011) (“Because the Estate is incapable of acting on its own, it

must act—or fail to act—through its administrator. . . “) The Estate itself is therefore not a

proper Plaintiff in this case.

- 1 - 13cv311

Case 3:13-cv-00311-JAH-KSC Document 9 Filed 02/19/13 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

Second, neither an estate nor the administrator of an estate can proceed in pro per

in federal court. See Swenson v. United States, 2013 WL 147814, slip op. at *3 n.2

(E.D.Cal., Jan. 14, 2013) (citing Iannaccone v.Law, 142 F.3d 553, 559 (2d Cir. 1998)). See

also Civil Local Rule 83.3(k) (permitting only natural persons to appear in pro per in this

Court, and requiring all other parties, including legal entities, to appear in court only through

a duly admitted attorney).

It should be noted that neither the Estate nor its executor could not proceed in

California state court in pro per, either. See City of Downey v. Johnson, 263 Cal. App. 2d

775, 780 (Cal. App. 1968) (executor of estate was not entitled to appear in pro per).

Requiring Plaintiff to be represented by counsel at this point does not create an undue

burden or a danger of unfair surprise.

Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to substitute in licensed and qualified counsel no later

than March 11, 2013. Counsel shall then file an amended complaint stating a proper Plaintiff

no later than March 18, 2013. If Plaintiff fails to do either of these things within the time

permitted, this action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3(k), only a duly admitted attorney may make

appearances. Obviously, the Estate itself cannot file documents. Any documents to be filed,

therefore, must be filed by a duly licensed and admitted attorney; documents submitted for

filing by anyone else will be summarily rejected for filing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 14, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv311

Case 3:13-cv-00311-JAH-KSC Document 9 Filed 02/19/13 Page 2 of 2