Sundby v. Myers
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court addressed a First Amended Complaint seeking post-judgment TILA damages and a pending Motion to Dismiss in a case remanded by the Ninth Circuit. The court ordered the plaintiff to obtain legal representation for the trust entity and scheduled a status hearing to determine the impact of the Ninth Circuit's opinion on the proceedings.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Mandating legal representation for the Trust“To the extent Mr. Sundby purports to be representing the Dale H. Sundby and Edith Littlefield Sundby, Trust No. 1989-1 dated January 26, 1989, it is HEREBY ORDERED that legal representation must be obtained on behalf of the Trust.” | agree with court The Ninth Circuit explicitly held that a trustee cannot represent a trust pro se and remanded the case specifically to afford the trust an opportunity to obtain legal representation. The district court's order directly implements this mandate. |
Scheduling a status hearing“A status hearing is hereby scheduled for Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 2D to discuss what impact the Ninth Circuit opinion has on the present proceedings.” | agree with court The court is exercising its inherent authority to manage the docket and determine the procedural posture of the case following a remand that vacated the prior judgment. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural management order that strictly follows the mandate of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It correctly identifies that the plaintiff cannot proceed pro se on behalf of the trust and sets a deadline for compliance. It does not rule on the merits of the Motion to Dismiss but rather schedules a hearing to address the procedural implications of the remand.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DALE SUNDBY; DALE SUNDBY, Case No.: 21-CV-02013-GPC-AHG Trustee, 12 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 13 (1) MANDATING LEGAL v. REPRESENTATION FOR TRUST; 14 AND JEFFREY MYERS, et al., 15 (2) SETTING HEARING DATE Defendants. 16 17 On January 14, 2022 Plaintiff Dale Sundby filed the operative First Amended 18 Complaint (“FAC”) for Augmentation of Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) Civil Damages 19 Award. (ECF 11; FAC.) He seeks relief in the form of post-judgment TILA damages in 20 addition to costs and attorney’s fees. (FAC ¶¶ 1-4.) The judgment to which he is referring 21 is from Case No. 3:19-CV-00390-GPC-AHG in which Mr. Sundby appeared pro se. (FAC 22 ¶ 19.) 23 After a judgment was reached in Case No. 19-CV-00390, both Mr. Sundby and the 24 Defendants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See 25 Sundby v. Marquee Funding Grp., Inc., Nos. 21-55504 & 55582, 2022 WL 4826445 (9th 26 Cir. Oct. 3, 2022). Addressing an argument not raised before the District Court, the Ninth 27 1 || Circuit held that Mr. “Sundby, in his capacity as trustee,” could not represent the trust pro 2 Id. at *1; see CE. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir. 3 || 1987) (explaining why a person may represent self in litigation, but status as trustee does 4 || not include “right to present arguments pro se in federal court’). The Ninth Circuit vacated 5 || the judgment and remanded the case back to the Court “to afford the trust an opportunity 6 || to obtain legal representation and to develop facts to determine in the first instance whether 7 ||Sundby is the beneficial owner of the trust or whether the trust transferred any interests to 8 ||Sundby.” /d. at *1. 9 In the present proceeding, Mr. Sundby appears both in his individual capacity and 10 trustee. (FAC.) To the extent Mr. Sundby purports to be representing the Dale H. 11 ||Sundby and Edith Littlefield Sundby, Trust No. 1989-1 dated January 26, 1989, it is 12 |} HEREBY ORDERED that legal representation must be obtained on behalf of the Trust. A 13 ||notice of appearance shall be made on or before Friday, January 13, 2023. 14 A Motion to Dismiss has been fully briefed and taken under submission. (ECF 13, 15 15.) A status hearing is hereby scheduled for Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:30 PM 16 ||in Courtroom 2D to discuss what impact the Ninth Circuit opinion has on the present 17 || proceedings. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: December 15, 2022 <= 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21-CV-02013-GPC-AHG