Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01227/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01227-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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

Federal National Mortgage Association,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Marshall Home; and Independent Rights 

Party, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-11-1227-PHX-DGC

ORDER

 Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) claims that 

Marshall Home, founder of the Independent Rights Party (“IRP”), has fraudulently 

executed and recorded special warranty deeds which purport to transfer to IRP the titles 

to multiple properties owned by Fannie Mae. Doc. 1. In an order dated July 1, 2011 

(Doc. 38), the Court granted Fannie Mae’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief and 

denied Mr. Home’s pro se motion to dismiss.1

 Defendants have failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint as 

required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fannie Mae has filed a motion for the 

entry of default, final judgment, and permanent injunction. Doc. 44. The Clerk has 

entered Defendants’ default pursuant to Rule 55(a). Doc. 45. The motion will be denied 

 

1

 Mr. Home purported to file the motion to dismiss on behalf of himself and 

Defendant IRP, but only licensed attorneys may represent corporations and other entities in federal court. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 

U.S. 194, 201-202 (1993) (citing Osborn v. President of Bank of U.S., 9 Wheat. 738, 829, 

6 L.Ed. 204 (1824)). 

Case 2:11-cv-01227-DGC Document 46 Filed 08/25/11 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

as moot in this regard. See Doc. 44 at 1-2. 

 With respect to the request for a default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b) and 

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (Doc. 44 at 2-12), Defendants have failed 

to file a response and the time for doing so has expired. Defendants shall have until 

September 9, 2011 to respond to the motion for final judgment and permanent 

injunction. As noted above, Defendant IRP may file a response only through licensed 

counsel. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Fannie Mae’s motion for entry of default (Doc. 44 at 1-2) is denied as 

moot. 

 2. Defendants shall have until September 9, 2011 to respond to the motion 

for final judgment and permanent injunction (Doc. 44 at 2-12). No further extensions 

will be granted absent truly extraordinary circumstances. 

Dated this 25th day of August, 2011. 

 

Case 2:11-cv-01227-DGC Document 46 Filed 08/25/11 Page 2 of 2