Sundby v. Myers
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Dale Sundby, appearing pro se as a trustee, filed ex parte motions for mandatory joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) in two related cases. The court denied the motions because Sundby failed to comply with local rules regarding hearing dates and ex parte filings, and because a trustee cannot represent a trust pro se in federal court.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of ex parte motions for mandatory joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a) in Case No. 19-cv-390 and Case No. 21-cv-2013.“For these reasons, the Court hereby DENIES the ex parte motions for mandatory joinder under Rule 19(a).” | agree with court The court correctly identified that a trustee cannot represent a trust pro se in federal court, citing binding Ninth Circuit precedent. Additionally, the failure to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1.b (hearing date) and Civil Local Rule 83.3.g (ex parte requirements) provides independent procedural grounds for denial. The decision follows from the law and the record recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It relies on a specific, binding Ninth Circuit decision from the same parties (Sundby v. Marquee Funding Group) that directly addresses the pro se representation issue. It also correctly notes the failure to adhere to local rules governing ex parte motions and hearing scheduling. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural denial.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DALE SUNDBY, Trustee,, Case No.: 19-CV-0390-GPC-AHG 21-CV-2013-GPC-AHG 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTIONS FOR MANDATORY 14 MARQUEE FUNDING GROUP, et al., JOINDER UNDER FED. R. CIV. 15 Defendants. P. 19(a) [ECF Nos. 331 & 39] 16 17 On April 10, 2023, Plaintiff Dale Sundby, appearing pro se on behalf of a trust, filed 18 ex parte motions seeking mandatory joinder of parties under Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 19(a). Case No. 19-cv-390 ECF No. 331; Case No. 21-cv-2013 ECF No. 39. 20 He did not call the Court’s clerk in advance of filing the motion to obtain a hearing date in 21 accord with Civil Local Rule 7.1.b. See ECF No. 331 at 1 (no hearing date listed). Nor 22 does it appear by affidavit or declaration that Sundby complied with Civil Local Rule 23 83.3.g concerning ex parte motions and orders. See ECF No. 331 (absence). Finally, “[a] 24 trustee may not represent a trust pro se in federal court.” Sundby v. Marquee Funding Grp., 25 Inc., Nos. 21-55504 & 21-55582, 2022 WL 4826445, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2022). For 26 27 1 1 || these reasons, the Court hereby DENIES the ex parte motions for mandatory joinder under 2 || Rule 19(a). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: April 28, 2023 Carseto C4 5 Hon. the Coke 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 91.GV.2013.-GPC-AHG