Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04818/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04818-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Debra A. Judd
Plaintiff
Marin City Housing Authority
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBRA A. JUDD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIN CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-04818-KAW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO HAVE 

REPRESENTATIVE SPEAK ON 

PLAINTIFF'S BEHALF; ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 9, 10

On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant suit against Defendant Marin City Housing 

Authority, alleging negligence. (Compl., Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court granted on September 23, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 8.) On 

September 30, 2016, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint 

with leave to amend, finding that: (1) Plaintiff failed to separately plead each cause of action, (2) 

the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case as currently pled, and (3) Plaintiff failed 

to adequately plead a negligence claim. (Dkt. No. 9 at 2-4.) Having dismissed Plaintiff's 

complaint, the Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 4.)

On November 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to have her son speak on her behalf. (Dkt. 

No. 10.) The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff can only be represented by an attorney, 

and Plaintiff does not state that her son is an attorney. If Plaintiff's son represents her in Court, he 

will be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, which is prohibited. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. 

Code § 6125 ("No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of 

the State Bar").

Additionally, Plaintiff's motion must be denied because there is no operative complaint in 

this case. Plaintiff's amended complaint was due by October 31, 2016; as of November 15, 2016, 

Case 4:16-cv-04818-KAW Document 12 Filed 11/15/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff has yet to file an amended complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff is ordered, on or before 

December 9, 2016, to 1) file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies identified by the 

Court's September 30, 2016 order, and 2) respond to this order to show cause by explaining why 

she did not file a timely amended complaint. Failure to complete both tasks by December 9, 2016 

may result in the Court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-04818-KAW Document 12 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 2