Avis Copelin v. Charles Schwab & Co, Inc.

C.D. California

Avis Copelin v. Charles Schwab & Co, Inc.

DecidedJune 18, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00855

StatusUnknown

This text of Avis Copelin v. Charles Schwab & Co, Inc. (Avis Copelin v. Charles Schwab & Co, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Avis Copelin v. Charles Schwab & Co, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AVIS COPELIN, C ase No. 2:25-cv-00855-SRM-AJR

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED [1]

14 15 CHARLES SCHWAB & CO, INC., et al., Defendants. 16

17 18 This matter is before the Court sua sponte upon Plaintiff Avis Copelin’s pro se 19 Complaint and Request for Injunction filed as the Agent for Terry Gordon against 20 Defendants Charles Schwab & Co, Inc., The Charles Schwab Corporation, and Does 1-10 21 (“Defendants”) (Dkt. 1). 22 Ms. Copelin’s Complaint contains many problematic matters, including: (1) Ms. 23 Copelin has been directed by this Court in case number 2:25-cv-833-SRM-PD as to her 24 lack of standing in bringing an action on behalf of Mr. Gordon; and (2) it appears the 25 body of the Complaint is directed toward the Defendant Allianz Life Insurance Company, 26 the Defendant in the other case before this Court (Dkt. 1 at 2-8). Beyond the caption, the 27 Complaint does not make any claims or allegations against the named Defendants in this 28 case. Id. 1 Foremost, a party “who seek[s] to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must 2 satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an 3 actual case or controversy.” See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983) 4 (citations omitted). It is the plaintiff who has the burden to establish standing to bring 5 such claims. See Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th 6 Cir. 2010). Based on what is before the Court, Ms. Copelin has not established standing. 7 To support Article III standing, “[t]he plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in 8 fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is 9 likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 10 U.S. 330, 338 (2016) (citations omitted). “[T]he minimum requirement for an injury-in- 11 fact is that the plaintiff have legal title to, or a proprietary interest in, the claim.” See, e.g., 12 W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 549 F.3d 100, 108 (2d Cir. 13 2008) (citing Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 287-89 14 (2008)). “[A] mere power-of-attorney . . . does not confer standing to sue in the holder’s 15 own right because a power-of-attorney does not transfer an ownership interest in the 16 claim.” Id. As alleged, such standing remains lacking (Dkt. 1). 17 Even had standing been met here, the Complaint still suffers deficiencies. While 18 courts are to liberally construe pro se pleadings, the allegations of the complaint must 19 still include “a short and plain statement of the claim” that will “give the defendant fair 20 notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” See 21 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. 22 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 23 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 24 1. The Plaintiff, whether Avis Copelin or Terry Gordon, shall show cause why the 25 Complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice because Ms. Copelin lacks 26 standing, or alternatively, because Ms. Copelin has no authority to appear pro se on 27 behalf of another individual by filing the following by written response on or before 28 July 2, 2025: 1 (a) a notice of association of counsel identifying the attorney(s) who will represent 2 Gordon (and/or Ms. Copelin), or information about Ms. Copelin’s admission to the 3 || Bar of this Court; (b) an amended complaint alleging facts about Ms. Copelin’s standing 4 || to bring this lawsuit against the properly named Defendants; or (c) a written response 5 || addressing the issues identified in this Order. 6 2. Plaintiff's failure to file a timely response may result in dismissal without 7 || prejudice without further notice. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 || Dated: June 18, 2025 12 HON. SERENA R. MURILLO 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AVIS COPELIN, C ase No. 2:25-cv-00855-SRM-AJR

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED [1]

14 15 CHARLES SCHWAB & CO, INC., et al., Defendants. 16

17 18 This matter is before the Court sua sponte upon Plaintiff Avis Copelin’s pro se 19 Complaint and Request for Injunction filed as the Agent for Terry Gordon against 20 Defendants Charles Schwab & Co, Inc., The Charles Schwab Corporation, and Does 1-10 21 (“Defendants”) (Dkt. 1). 22 Ms. Copelin’s Complaint contains many problematic matters, including: (1) Ms. 23 Copelin has been directed by this Court in case number 2:25-cv-833-SRM-PD as to her 24 lack of standing in bringing an action on behalf of Mr. Gordon; and (2) it appears the 25 body of the Complaint is directed toward the Defendant Allianz Life Insurance Company, 26 the Defendant in the other case before this Court (Dkt. 1 at 2-8). Beyond the caption, the 27 Complaint does not make any claims or allegations against the named Defendants in this 28 case. Id. 1 Foremost, a party “who seek[s] to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must 2 satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an 3 actual case or controversy.” See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983) 4 (citations omitted). It is the plaintiff who has the burden to establish standing to bring 5 such claims. See Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th 6 Cir. 2010). Based on what is before the Court, Ms. Copelin has not established standing. 7 To support Article III standing, “[t]he plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in 8 fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is 9 likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 10 U.S. 330, 338 (2016) (citations omitted). “[T]he minimum requirement for an injury-in- 11 fact is that the plaintiff have legal title to, or a proprietary interest in, the claim.” See, e.g., 12 W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 549 F.3d 100, 108 (2d Cir. 13 2008) (citing Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 287-89 14 (2008)). “[A] mere power-of-attorney . . . does not confer standing to sue in the holder’s 15 own right because a power-of-attorney does not transfer an ownership interest in the 16 claim.” Id. As alleged, such standing remains lacking (Dkt. 1). 17 Even had standing been met here, the Complaint still suffers deficiencies. While 18 courts are to liberally construe pro se pleadings, the allegations of the complaint must 19 still include “a short and plain statement of the claim” that will “give the defendant fair 20 notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” See 21 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. 22 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 23 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 24 1. The Plaintiff, whether Avis Copelin or Terry Gordon, shall show cause why the 25 Complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice because Ms. Copelin lacks 26 standing, or alternatively, because Ms. Copelin has no authority to appear pro se on 27 behalf of another individual by filing the following by written response on or before 28 July 2, 2025: 1 (a) a notice of association of counsel identifying the attorney(s) who will represent 2 Gordon (and/or Ms. Copelin), or information about Ms. Copelin’s admission to the 3 || Bar of this Court; (b) an amended complaint alleging facts about Ms. Copelin’s standing 4 || to bring this lawsuit against the properly named Defendants; or (c) a written response 5 || addressing the issues identified in this Order. 6 2. Plaintiff's failure to file a timely response may result in dismissal without 7 || prejudice without further notice. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 || Dated: June 18, 2025 12 HON. SERENA R. MURILLO 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Avis Copelin v. Charles Schwab & Co, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avis-copelin-v-charles-schwab-co-inc-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack