Avis Copelin v. Charles Schwab & Co, Inc.

Opinion

AVIS COPELIN, C ase No. 2:25-cv-00855-SRM-AJR

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE v. DISMISSED [1]

CHARLES SCHWAB & CO, INC., et al., Defendants.

This matter is before the Court sua sponte upon Plaintiff Avis Copelin’s pro se Complaint and Request for Injunction filed as the Agent for Terry Gordon against Defendants Charles Schwab & Co, Inc., The Charles Schwab Corporation, and Does 1-10 (“Defendants”) (Dkt. 1). Ms. Copelin’s Complaint contains many problematic matters, including: (1) Ms. Copelin has been directed by this Court in case number 2:25-cv-833-SRM-PD as to her lack of standing in bringing an action on behalf of Mr. Gordon; and (2) it appears the body of the Complaint is directed toward the Defendant Allianz Life Insurance Company, the Defendant in the other case before this Court (Dkt. 1 at 2-8). Beyond the caption, the Complaint does not make any claims or allegations against the named Defendants in this case. Id. Foremost, a party “who seek[s] to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.” See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983) (citations omitted). It is the plaintiff who has the burden to establish standing to bring such claims. See Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010). Based on what is before the Court, Ms. Copelin has not established standing. To support Article III standing, “[t]he plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016) (citations omitted). “[T]he minimum requirement for an injury-in- fact is that the plaintiff have legal title to, or a proprietary interest in, the claim.” See, e.g., W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 549 F.3d 100, 108 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 287-89 (2008)). “[A] mere power-of-attorney . . . does not confer standing to sue in the holder’s own right because a power-of-attorney does not transfer an ownership interest in the claim.” Id. As alleged, such standing remains lacking (Dkt. 1). Even had standing been met here, the Complaint still suffers deficiencies. While courts are to liberally construe pro se pleadings, the allegations of the complaint must still include “a short and plain statement of the claim” that will “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Plaintiff, whether Avis Copelin or Terry Gordon, shall show cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice because Ms. Copelin lacks standing, or alternatively, because Ms. Copelin has no authority to appear pro se on behalf of another individual by filing the following by written response on or before July 2, 2025: (a) a notice of association of counsel identifying the attorney(s) who will represent Gordon (and/or Ms. Copelin), or information about Ms. Copelin’s admission to the Bar of this Court; (b) an amended complaint alleging facts about Ms. Copelin’s standing to bring this lawsuit against the properly named Defendants; or (c) a written response addressing the issues identified in this Order. 2. Plaintiff's failure to file a timely response may result in dismissal without prejudice without further notice.

Dated: June 18, 2025 HON. SERENA R. MURILLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE