Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00580/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00580-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 09:0010 Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award

---

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

SEE MORE LIGHT INVESTMENTS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

MORGAN STANLEY DW INC., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-580-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff See More Light Investments’

(“Plaintiff”) second amended petition to vacate denial of arbitration award (Dkt.#23);

Defendant Morgan Stanley DW Inc.’s (“Defendant”) motion to strike the second amended

petition (Dkt.# 25), Plaintiff’s motion to amend the case caption (Dkt.#15), and Plaintiff’s

“Motion for the Court to Consider Dispositive Evidence That the Chairperson, Commander

Fearnow[,] Was Prejudice[d] and Biased Against Licht.” (Dkt.#34) After reviewing the

pleadings, the Court issues the following order. 

I. Factual Background

On March 26, 2008, Plaintiff filed a fifty-six-page petition to vacate the denial of an

arbitration award. (Dkt.#1) Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson directed Plaintiff to

file an amended petition that complied with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Rules of Practice for the District of Arizona. (Dkt.#4) He also pointed out that

Case 2:08-cv-00580-JAT Document 40 Filed 11/24/08 Page 1 of 5
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 -

“[w]hile a natural person can always appear pro per, a non-lawyer may not represent other

persons, partners, or with a few minor exception[s] not applicable herein, a corporation.”

(Dkt.#4 at 6) Magistrate Judge Anderson cited Boydston v. Strole Development Co., 193

Ariz. 47, 50, 969 P.2d 653, 656 (Ariz. 1998) and Local Rule 83.1(b) (“Except as herein

otherwise provided, only members of the bar of this Court shall practice in this District.”),

and explained that “Dr. Licht will be permitted to represent only himself unless he fully

meets the Local Rules’ requirements.” (Dkt.#4 at 6)

After the case was randomly assigned to this Court, (Dkt.#s 5,6), Plaintiff was ordered

to comply with Magistrate Judge Anderson’s order. (Dkt.#7) However, Plaintiff’s first

amended petition failed to comply with several requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the Local Rules, this Court’s prior order, and Magistrate Judge Anderson’s order.

(Dkt.#9) For example, instead of being a “short and plain statement” of material facts in

accordance with Rule 8(a), the petition was fifty-seven pages long. (Dkt.#9, 20) It also

contained extremely large and varying font sizes. (Dkt.#9, 20) The Court pointed out these

deficiencies, dismissed the first amended petition without prejudice, and granted leave for

Plaintiff to refile a second amended petition. (Dkt.# 20) The Court also directed Dr. Licht

to explain why he had standing to bring this action notwithstanding the fact that he was not

a party to the underlying arbitration and repeated Judge Anderson’s warning that if Plaintiff

did not comply with the Court’s order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s

Rules of Practice, the case could be dismissed. (Dkt.#20 at 2) 

Thus, in his third attempt to comply with the rules, on July 26, 2008, Dr. Licht filed

a second amended petition entitled “Dr. Seymour Licht’s, Plaintiff, Second Amended

Petition That the District Court Issue an Order Vacating or Reversing the Arbitrator’s Order

Denying Licht’s Claim Against Morgan Stanley and Assessing $2,700.00 of Forum Fees

Against Licht Issued on February 4, 2008.” (Dkt. # 23) 

Case 2:08-cv-00580-JAT Document 40 Filed 11/24/08 Page 2 of 5
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 -

II. Discussion

Defendant Morgan Stanley moves to strike the second amended petition on the

grounds that the petition failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

Local Rules of Practice, and the Court’s orders. (Dkt.#25) Morgan Stanley also argues that

because Dr. Licht was not a party to the arbitration action, he does not have standing to

challenge it. (Dkt.#25 at 4) Finally, Morgan Stanley points out that Dr. Licht cannot

represent See More Light Investments because he is pro se and “has no authority to appear

as an attorney for others than himself,” citing Church of the New Testament v. United States,

783 F.2d 771, 773-74 (9th Cir. 1986). (Dkt.#25 at 5) 

In his response, Dr. Licht admits that he is “an engineer[,] not a lawyer” and argues

that since he represented See More Light Investments during the arbitration proceeding, he,

as an individual, should be considered to have been a party to that action. (Dkt.#26 at 5-8)

He further explains he has no intention of hiring a lawyer to represent See More Light

Investments because the “risk to reward ratio” makes it financially imprudent to do so.

(Dkt.#26 at 10) Finally, he argues that even if unincorporated associations must be

represented by an attorney, partnerships need not be, though he does not cite a case for this

proposition. (Dkt. #26 at 9) 

The Federal Arbitration Act authorizes parties to an arbitration to apply to vacate the

arbitration at the district court. 9 U.S.C. 10(a) (“In any of the following cases the United

States court in and for the district where the award was made may make an order vacating

the award upon the application of any party to the litigation.”) (emphasis added). As a nonparty to the underlying arbitration, Dr. Licht lacks standing to challenge it. See Dundas

Shipping & Trading Co., Ltd. v. Stravelakis Bros., Ltd., 508 F. Supp. 1000, 1003 (S.D.N.Y.

1981) (“Since Buck was not a party to the arbitration, it has no standing to move to vacate

the award.”); 3 Fed. Proc. § 4:134 (2008) (“One who is not a party to the arbitration has no

standing to challenge an award.”). Moreover, the fact that Dr. Licht owns a portion of See

More Light Investments is not sufficient to create standing because he was not a party to the

underlying arbitration. See also Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. CHG International, Inc., 811 F.2d

Case 2:08-cv-00580-JAT Document 40 Filed 11/24/08 Page 3 of 5
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 If Dr. Licht were a licensed attorney and failed to report controlling adverse

authority of the same nature as that at issue here, he would likely be subject to sanctions. See

ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a) (2008) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly: ...

(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the

lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing

counsel.”). 

- 4 -

1209, 1214 (9th Cir. 1987) (“An indirect financial stake in another party’s claim is

insufficient to create standing on appeal.”) Thus, Dr. Licht’s motion to amend the case

caption to include Dr. Seymour Licht in a personal capacity as a co-plaintiff (Dkt.#15) is

denied on the grounds that such an amendment would be futile. Rutman Wine Co. v. E. &

J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir.1987) (no abuse of discretion to deny leave to

amend where the amendment would be futile).

Moreover, it is a longstanding rule that a corporations and other entities must appear

in court through an attorney. Boydston v. Strole Development Co., 193 Ariz. 47, 49, 969 P.2d

653, 655 (1998) (“[A] corporation cannot appear in court without a lawyer.”). An individual

who appears pro se has no authority to appear on behalf of any other person or entity. This

rule has been applied to partnerships, and to Dr. Licht himself, by the Ninth Circuit. In re

America West Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining that a partnership may

not be represented in court by non-attorney partner and affirming the bankruptcy court’s

order “barring Licht, a non-attorney, from representing See More Light Investments”).1

 As

the Ninth Circuit held in 1994, Dr. Licht cannot represent See More Light Investments, a

partnership, because he is not a licensed attorney. (Dkt.#23 at 8) 

Moreover, given that Dr. Licht admits that he has no intention of retaining a lawyer

to represent See More Light Investments despite the fact that he was warned that he may not

represent the partnership by Magistrate Judge Anderson, by Defendant, and by this Court,

the second amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).

Nothing in this order should be construed as preventing See More Light Investments from

filing suit against Morgan Stanley to challenge the arbitration award if See More Light

Investments were to obtain proper representation by a licensed attorney. 

Case 2:08-cv-00580-JAT Document 40 Filed 11/24/08 Page 4 of 5
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 -

Because Dr. Licht may not represent See More Light Investments before this Court,

the Court need not reach the merits of his petition to vacate the arbitration award on the

grounds that the arbitrator was prejudiced and biased. (Dkts. # 34, 35)

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s motion to amend the case caption

(Dkt.#15).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant’s motion to strike the second

amended complaint (Dkt.# 25).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this case without prejudice pursuant to

Rule 41(b).

JUDGMENT ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

DATED this 19th day of November, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00580-JAT Document 40 Filed 11/24/08 Page 5 of 5