Estate of Burkhard Ketschau v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 15, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01676
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 ESTATE OF BURKHARD CASE NO. C23-1676JLR KETSCHAU, et al., 11 ORDER Plaintiffs, 12 v.

13 PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, 14 15 Defendant.

16 Plaintiffs Ryan Ketschau, Ruby E. Ketschau, and the Estate of Burkhard Ketschau 17 (individually, the “Estate” and collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action against 18 Defendant Progressive Direct Insurance Company on November 2, 2023. (Compl. (Dkt. 19 # 1).) Mr. Ketschau and Ms. Ketschau are proceeding pro se on behalf of themselves and 20 the Estate. (See generally Dkt.) On December 4, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave 21 to amend their complaint. (Mot. (Dkt. # 6).) The court cannot decide Plaintiffs’ motion 22 // 1 at this time because it is not satisfied that Mr. Ketschau and Ms. Ketschau are authorized 2 to proceed pro se on behalf of the Estate.

3 28 U.S.C. § 1654 permits a party to litigate his or her own case in federal court 4 without hiring an attorney. 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the 5 parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of 6 such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.”). The 7 right of self-representation, however, is personal to oneself and generally does not extend 8 to others. See C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).

9 The Ninth Circuit has recognized that certain “principles . . . militate against allowing 10 non-lawyers to represent others in court.” Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 11 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Brown v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 868 F. Supp. 168, 172 12 (E.D. Va. 1994)); see also Guest v. Hansen, 603 F.3d 15, 20 (2d Cir. 2010) (“The law 13 contains so many esoteric pitfalls for an untrained advocate . . . that the risk of

14 inadvertent waiver or abandonment of an issue is too high for us to allow a pro se litigant 15 to represent another person.”). “While a non-attorney may appear pro se on his own 16 behalf, ‘[h]e has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.’” Johns, 17 114 F.3d at 876 (italics added) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Tr., 818 F.2d at 697); see also 18 id. at 877 (holding that a parent cannot maintain an action on behalf of a minor child

19 without retaining a lawyer). 20 Some circuit courts have adopted a narrow exception to this general rule in the 21 context of trusts and estates: if a pro se plaintiff-beneficiary can show that there are no 22 other beneficiaries or creditors, then he may represent the trust or estate on a pro se basis. 1 Rodgers v. Lancaster Police & Fire Dep’t, 819 F.3d 205, 211 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding 2 that the sole beneficiary of an estate without creditors may represent the estate pro se);

3 Bass v. Leatherwood, 788 F.3d 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2015) (same); Guest, 603 F.3d at 20-21 4 (same). Although the Ninth Circuit has not squarely adopted this exception, it has at least 5 once followed a similar approach in light of the general rule that a pro se litigant cannot 6 represent parties other than himself. See C.E. Pope Equity Tr., 818 F.2d at 697-98 7 (affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff-trustee’s complaint on behalf of trusts where the 8 plaintiff failed to show that he was a trust beneficiary and thus was “not the actual

9 beneficial owner of the claims being asserted by the Trusts”). Accordingly, the court 10 concludes that Mr. Ketschau and Ms. Ketschau are not authorized to proceed pro se on 11 behalf of the Estate unless they can show that they are the only beneficiaries of the Estate 12 and that the Estate has no creditors. 13 The court ORDERS Mr. Ketschau and Ms. Ketschau to SHOW CAUSE why they

14 should be permitted to proceed pro se on behalf of the Estate. Specifically, Mr. Ketschau 15 and Ms. Ketschau must file a response to this order by no later than January 5, 2024, 16 that addresses the following: (1) their relationship to the deceased, (2) whether they are 17 beneficiaries of the Estate, (3) whether there are other living beneficiaries of the Estate 18 who are not parties to this action, (4) whether the Estate has creditors, and (5) the

19 identities of any other living beneficiaries and/or creditors of the Estate. Mr. Ketschau 20 and Ms. Ketschau may not proceed pro se on behalf of the Estate unless they provide 21 proof, by sworn affidavit, that they are the sole beneficiaries and that the Estate does not 22 have any creditors. Alternatively, Mr. Ketschau and Ms. Ketschau may discharge this 1 order to show cause by filing a notice of their intent to hire an attorney to represent the 2 Estate by no later than January 5, 2024. The failure to timely respond to this order may

3 result in either the Estate’s dismissal from this action or the dismissal of this action 4 entirely. 5 Dated this 15th day of December, 2023. A 6 JAMES L. ROBART 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22