Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-60/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

)

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 02-6583 AWI SMS

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS ENTITY PLAINTIFFS

ORDER DISMISSING ENTITY

PLAINTIFFS WITH PREJUDICE

(Documents #592 & #593)

BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint filed on June 11, 2003. 

After the court ruled on various motions for summary judgment, four claims remained in this

action: The Second Claim for fraud and forbearance on foreclosure agreements 2 & 3. The

Third Claim for breach of contract concerning foreclosures on California properties. The Fifth

Claim for theft of Colorado Property in violation of Colorado law. The Sixth Claim for fraud

in relation to California property. 

On December 4, 2006, the court continued the trial based on the parties’ oral stipulation. 

No stipulation was ever filed by the parties. On March 6, 2007, the court ordered that the oral

stipulation would be enforced. Part of this stipulation includes the dismissal of the Fifth Claim

and the Sixth Claim. Motions for reconsideration of the March 6, 2007 order enforcing the

December 4, 2006 stipulation are pending.

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 664 Filed 08/02/07 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

On April 19, 2007, the court granted Attorney Anthony Capozzi’s motion to withdraw

from representing Plaintiffs. This order left all Plaintiffs without counsel, including Estates in

Eagle Ridge, LLP, James C. Bateman Petroleum Services, DBA Semco, and Enviro-Safe, Inc.

(collectively “Entity Plaintiffs”). 

On April 26, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint by Entity

Plaintiffs or to strike their claims from the complaint because Entity Plaintiffs are no longer

represented by counsel. This motion was originally set for hearing on June 4, 2007. 

Because the court had not considered the effect on Entity Plaintiffs of allowing Attorney

Capozzi to withdraw from this action, on May 30, 2007, the court sua sponte continued the

motion to dismiss to July 9, 2007. The court picked the July 9, 2007 date because in an April

13, 2007 filing, Plaintiffs had asked that the court require Attorney Capozzi to stay on the case

for sixty days to allow them time to find new counsel. The court reasoned that July 9, 2007 was

well over the sixty days Plaintiffs had stated they would need to find a new attorney. 

On July 6, 2007, the court again sua sponte continued the hearing on Defendants’ motion

to dismiss. The court reasoned that since the court’s order continuing the motion to dismiss,

Plaintiffs, in pro se, had filed many motions for reconsideration with this court. Most of these

documents appeared to be motions to reconsider the court’s May 17, 2007 order and the court’s

May 23, 2007 clarification of the May 17, 2007 order. However, these documents stated that

Entity Plaintiffs would be represented by July 23, 2007. The court found two additional weeks

would not unduly delay the proceedings in this case. As such, the court continued the hearing on

Defendants’ motion to dismiss to July 23, 2007. The July 6, 2007 order forewarned Entity

Plaintiffs that if they were not represented by counsel as of July 23, 2007, this court would grant

Defendants’ motion and dismiss Entity Plaintiffs from this action. 

On July 23, 2007, the court held a hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Entity

Plaintiffs. At the hearing, Plaintiff Terry Hamilton stated that he was still in discussions with

attorneys to represent all Plaintiffs in this case. The court then continued the motion to dismiss

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 664 Filed 08/02/07 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

to July 30, 2007 to allow Plaintiffs one more week to obtain counsel. The court warned

Plaintiffs that if Entity Plaintiffs were not represented by counsel at the July 30, 2007 hearing, the

court would dismiss Entity Plaintiffs. 

On July 30, 2007, the court held a second hearing. At this hearing Plaintiffs admitted

that Entity Plaintiffs still did not have an attorney. Plaintiffs took the position that Entity

Plaintiffs did not currently need an attorney because attorneys had made special appearances on

behalf of Entity Plaintiffs on all motions currently pending before the court. After finding that

Entity Plaintiffs needed an attorney of record and not merely an attorney to file a response to

current motions, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Entity Plaintiffs

with prejudice. This memorandum opinion follows. 

DISCUSSION

Litigants in federal court have a statutory right to choose to act as their own counsel. 28

U.S.C. § 1654. However, a litigant appearing in pro per has no authority to represent others. 

Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9 Cir.1962); Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d th

874, 876 (9 Cir.1997); Church of the New Testament v. U.S., 783 F.2d 771, 774 (9 Cir. 1986). th th

A non-lawyer may not represent entities, such as a corporation, partnership, or associations. 

Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993). Non-lawyers may only appear

in pro per on his or her own behalf because the “privilege is personal” to him or her. C.E. Pope

Equity Trust v. United States of America, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9 Cir.1987). th

Based on this legal authority, Entity Plaintiffs cannot proceed in this action without an

attorney and neither Plaintiff Terry Hamilton nor Plaintiff Sharon Hamilton may represent Entity

Plaintiffs. Because they are not represented, Entity Plaintiffs have not filed a formal opposition

to Defendants’ motion. However, in Plaintiff Terry Hamilton’s and Plaintiff Sharon Hamilton’s

filings, they do not contest that they are unable to represent Entity Plaintiffs. Rather, Plaintiff

Terry Hamilton and Plaintiff Sharon Hamilton have requested more time to find an attorney for

Entity Plaintiffs.

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 664 Filed 08/02/07 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 4

The court has already given Entity Plaintiffs a large amount of time to find a new

attorney. On January 18, 2007, Attorney David Gilmore filed a motion to withdraw as attorney

of record. On February 9, 2007, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Attorney Gilmore’s withdrawal. 

In this opposition, Plaintiffs stated that if the court allowed Attorney Gilmore to withdraw,

Attorney Capozzi would also move to withdraw, leaving Plaintiffs without counsel. On March

6, 2007, the court granted Attorney Gilmore’s motion to withdraw. On February 12, 2007 and

February 14, 2007, Attorney Capozzi filed his formal motion to withdraw as attorney. On April

13, 2007, Plaintiff Terry Hamilton and Plaintiff Sharon Hamilton filed their opposition to

Attorney Capozzi’s motion. In it, Plaintiff Terry Hamilton and Plaintiff Sharon Hamilton asked

that at a minimum, the court delay allowing Attorney Capozzi to withdraw for sixty days so that

Plaintiffs could find a new attorney. On April 19, 2007, the court granted Attorney Capozzi’s

motion. 

Based on this history, Plaintiffs have known since at least February 9, 2007, and no later

than February 14, 2007, that Entity Plaintiffs would need a new attorney in the near future. 

Plaintiffs should have begun looking for a new attorney at the very latest on April 19, 2007, the

date the court allowed Attorney Capozzi to withdraw. In April, Plaintiffs stated that they would

have a new attorney in sixty days, or on approximately by June 19, 2007. Plaintiffs did not

engage new counsel in this time period. In May and early June, Plaintiffs stated they would have

a new attorney present at a July 23, 2007 hearing. Plaintiffs did not engage new counsel by July

23, 2007. The court then gave Plaintiffs until July 30, 2007 to obtain counsel. Plaintiffs still

did not have counsel by the July 30, 2007 hearing. Plaintiffs have failed to find an attorney

despite assurances Plaintiffs would have an attorney by late June and then by late July.

The court did not consider the result of allowing Attorney Capozzi to withdraw on Entity

Plaintiffs. As such, the court has given Entity Plaintiffs great deference on the pending motion to

dismiss so that Entity Plaintiffs would have sufficient time to find a new attorney. The court has

sua sponte continued Defendants’ motion three times to allow Entity Plaintiffs more time. In

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 664 Filed 08/02/07 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

 From Plaintiff Terry Hamilton’s and Plaintiff Sharon Hamilton’s filings, it appears that 1

Entity Plaintiffs have assigned their rights to Plaintiff Terry Hamilton and Plaintiff Sharon

Hamilton. Defendants have indicated such an assignment is not possible. At this time, the

court will not discuss the assignment. No motion concerning the validity of the assignment is

before the court. 

5

addition, the court’s July 6, 2007 order specifically forewarned that failure to have an attorney by

the July 23, 2007 hearing would result in the court granting Defendants’ motion. At the July 23,

2007 hearing the court stated that if Entity Plaintiffs were not represented by the July 30, 2007

hearing they would be dismissed. This case has been in limbo since April while Plaintiffs have

been attempting to obtain a new attorney. At this time, the court finds that this action, filed in

2002, must proceed. Because no more time will be given to find an attorney to represent

Plaintiffs, Entity Plaintiffs must be dismissed because they do not have counsel of record. 

1

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

2. Entity Plaintiffs are DISMISSED with prejudice from this action; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on Plaintiffs at

the following address:

Terry D. Hamilton

1502 Westbrook Court

Modesto, CA 95358

Sharon M. Hamilton

1502 Westbrook Court

Modesto, CA 95358

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 664 Filed 08/02/07 Page 5 of 5