Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00291/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00291-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1981hs Housing Discrimination

---

1 

15cv291 AJB (NLS) 

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 

Roz Alexander-Kasparik, as an individual 

and in her capacity as the Conservator of 

David Rector, 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Trilogy Real Estate Management; Simon 

Levi LLC; and Does 1-10, inclusive, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 15cv291 AJB (NLS) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER 

TO DISMISS THIS CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF 

ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION 

 Roz Alexander-Kasparik, while represented by counsel, filed this housing 

discrimination case as an individual in her capacity as the conservator of David Rector. 

Early in the case the district judge granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw from 

the case. This court then held an Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE), where Plaintiffs 

attended without counsel. Given that Ms. Alexander-Kasparik is not an attorney and is 

serving as a conservator for Mr. Rector, the court ordered Plaintiffs to substitute in 

counsel before the Case Management Conference (CMC). But Plaintiffs still did not 

have counsel by the time of the CMC. The court then set a follow-up CMC and gave 

Plaintiffs more time to find counsel. Because Plaintiffs still have not retained counsel, 

the court set this Order to Show Cause (OSC) hearing for why this case should not be 

dismissed for Plaintiffs’ lack of attorney representation. 

Case 3:15-cv-00291-AJB-NLS Document 44 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 6
2 

15cv291 AJB (NLS) 

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

On November 3, 2015, the court held an OSC hearing. Roz Alexander-Kasparik 

appeared in her capacity as conservator for David Rector. Jennifer Branch appeared for 

Defendants. For the following reasons, the court RECOMMENDS that the district judge 

DISMISS this case without prejudice.

Relevant Background. 

 David Rector is an individual who tragically fell ill with an aortic dissection and 

consequent brain injury, quadriplegia and speech loss. Pls.’ OSC Response, pp.1-2. 

Practically speaking, Mr. Rector cannot speak or move. Compl. ¶ 8. He uses an 

oversized manual wheelchair to accommodate his disabilities. Compl. ¶ 13. The 

wheelchair must be reclined and his legs elevated and extended at all times, or he risks 

losing his left dialysis access or may need to have his foot amputated. Id.

 Plaintiffs moved into the Simon Levi Building on July 15, 2013, onto the third 

floor. Compl. ¶ 14. Plaintiffs say that one of the reasons they chose that building is 

because it has a large freight elevator that can accommodate Mr. Rector’s oversized 

wheelchair. ¶ 15. After moving in, Plaintiffs asked Defendants for permission to use the 

freight elevator as an accommodation for Mr. Rector’s disability, as Mr. Rector cannot 

use the regular elevator without considerable pain and difficulty. Compl. ¶¶ 18-20. 

Defendants refuse to do so. Compl. ¶ 18. Plaintiffs note that other tenants are allowed to 

use the freight elevator for moving purposes or when the regular passenger elevator 

breaks down. Compl. ¶ 21. 

 Plaintiffs, represented by Michelle Uzeta of the Center for Disability Access, filed 

the complaint on February 11, 2015. They then filed a motion for a preliminary 

injunction, which the court agreed to hear on April 14, 2015 under a shortened time 

schedule. Dkt. Nos. 11, 13. The court then continued the hearing to May 7, 2015, to 

encourage the parties to work out a reasonable accommodation. Dkt. No. 16. The parties 

then submitted supplemental briefing, and the court vacated oral argument for the 

hearing. Dkt. No. 22. On May 7, 2015, the court issued an order denying the motion for 

preliminary injunction, finding that Plaintiffs were not likely to succeed in this case. Dkt. 

Case 3:15-cv-00291-AJB-NLS Document 44 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 6
3 

15cv291 AJB (NLS) 

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

no. 24. 

 Shortly after the order denying the motion for preliminary injunction and before 

the ENE, Ms. Uzeta filed an ex parte motion to withdraw from representation, stating that 

Plaintiffs consented to the withdrawal. Dkt. No. 26.1

 Judge Whelan granted the 

unopposed ex parte application. Dkt. No. 29. Meanwhile, this court continued the ENE 

so as to allow Plaintiffs time to retain new counsel. Dkt. Nos. 28, 35. Plaintiffs then 

filed a notice that they intended to proceed pro se. Dkt. No. 30. Shortly after the filing of 

that notice, Judge Whelan recused from this case and it was ultimately reassigned to 

Judge Battaglia. 

 The court held an ENE on July 30, 2015. At the time the court advised Plaintiffs 

that they must substitute in counsel by August 31, 2015. Dkt. No. 36. Plaintiffs did not 

do so. At a CMC held on September 4, 2015, the court again extended the deadline for 

Plaintiffs to retain counsel, and warned them that if they did not, the court would have to 

set an OSC for why the case should not be dismissed. Dkt. No. 39. 

Plaintiffs have made significant efforts to find counsel, calling more than 50 

attorneys nationwide, calling several bar association referral services, and have written to 

foundations and state agencies in order to find any lawyer to take this case. Pls.’ OSC 

Response, pp.4-5. They have had no success. Id. Consequently, this court set the OSC 

hearing. 

Discussion. 

 In general, “[w]hile a non-attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, ‘[h]e has 

no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.’” Johns v. County of San 

Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United 

States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.1987)). Any party that appears pro se must be “the 

actual beneficial owner of the claims being asserted[.]” C.E. Pope Equity Trust, 818 F.2d 

                                                                

1 Plaintiffs were served with the ex parte motion to withdraw but did not file a response. 

Dkt. No. 26.

Case 3:15-cv-00291-AJB-NLS Document 44 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 6
4 

15cv291 AJB (NLS) 

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

at 697 (dismissing without prejudice a case brought by a non-attorney trustee on behalf of 

a trust). While parties have the right to litigate their own cases personally in federal 

court, they have no authority to appear on behalf of others. 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Simon v. 

Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that section 1654 limits civil 

litigants to pleading and conducting their own cases personally). The Ninth Circuit 

explains that “the privilege to represent oneself pro se provided by § 1654 is personal to 

the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities.” Id. at 664. 

Specifically, a non-attorney guardian cannot bring a lawsuit pro se on behalf of a 

minor or conservatee because the issue “‘falls squarely within the ambit of the principles 

that militate against allowing non-lawyers to represent others in court.’” Johns, 114 F.3d 

at 877 (quoting Brown v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 868 F.Supp. 168, 172 

(E.D.Va.1994)). The policy underlying the rule aims to protect the minor’s or 

conservatee’s interests: 

[T]he sole policy at stake concerns the exclusion of nonlicensed persons to appear as attorneys on behalf of others. 

*** 

It goes without saying that it is not in the interest of minors or 

incompetents that they be represented by non-attorneys. Where 

they have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to 

trained legal assistance so their rights may be fully protected. 

Id. (quoting Osei–Afriyie v. Medical College, 937 F.2d 876, 882–83 (3d Cir.1991)); see 

Gordon v. Williams, 2010 WL 2557213 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2010) (noting that “the 

rationale behind this prohibition is that the minor’s or incompetent’s right to trained legal 

assistance outweighs the parent’s or guardian’s right to appear pro se”).2

                                                                

2 The court notes that some Local Rules in other districts in this circuit expressly prohibit 

an individual from delegating his or her right to sue to someone who is not an attorney. 

See, e.g., Central District of California, Local Rule 83-2.2.1: 

Any person representing himself or herself without an attorney must appear 

pro se for such purpose. That representation may not be delegated to any 

Case 3:15-cv-00291-AJB-NLS Document 44 Filed 11/06/15 Page 4 of 6
5 

15cv291 AJB (NLS) 

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

 

 Here, Roz Alexander-Kasparik, the only named plaintiff in this case, filed this case 

in her capacity as the conservator of David Rector. She is not an attorney. The law is 

well established in this circuit that non-attorneys have no authority to represent others in 

a lawsuit. Johns, 114 F.3d at 876; C.E. Pope Equity Trust, 818 F.2d at 697. And because 

he is the subject of a conservatorship, Mr. Rector cannot represent himself in this case. 

See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 17(c). 

The proper way to proceed with this action is to dismiss it without prejudice. See 

Johns, 114 F.3d at 876 (dismissing without prejudice a federal civil rights case brought 

on behalf of a minor by his father); C.E. Pope Equity Trust, 818 F.2d at 697 (dismissing 

without prejudice a case brought pro se by a trustee); Osei–Afriyie, 937 F.2d 876 

(remanding claims brought by a non-attorney parent on behalf of his minor children so 

that either counsel may be appointed or claims could be dismissed without prejudice). 

Order. 

For the foregoing reasons, this court RECOMMENDS that this case be 

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

 The Court submits this Report and Recommendation to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 No later than November 20, 2015, any party to this action may file written 

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be 

captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

 Any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties 

no later than November 30, 2015. The parties are advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to those objections on appeal of the Court’s 

                                                                

other person – even a spouse, relative, or co-party in the case. A nonattorney guardian for a minor or an incompetent person must be represented 

by counsel. 

Case 3:15-cv-00291-AJB-NLS Document 44 Filed 11/06/15 Page 5 of 6
6 

15cv291 AJB (NLS) 

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

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 6, 2015 

Case 3:15-cv-00291-AJB-NLS Document 44 Filed 11/06/15 Page 6 of 6