Gary L. Wagoner, et al. v. State Industrial Products Corporation
This text of Gary L. Wagoner, et al. v. State Industrial Products Corporation (Gary L. Wagoner, et al. v. State Industrial Products Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Gary L Wagoner, et al., No. CV-25-01763-PHX-JJT
10 Plaintiffs, ORDER
11 v.
12 State Industrial Products Corporation,
13 Defendant. 14 15 At issue is pro se Plaintiff Dr. Gary L. Wagoner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment 16 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and (b)(6) (Doc. 31), as modified by his 17 Notice of Errata (Doc. 32). Plaintiff Wagoner, who also represented Plaintiff Catalina 18 Seaward Trust, requests that the Trust be relieved from the Court’s granting of judgment 19 on the pleadings against Plaintiff Wagoner and the Trust (“Judgment”) (Doc. 27). 20 The sole basis for the Motion is that Plaintiff Wagoner improperly represented the 21 Trust as a pro se litigant, which he argues voids the Judgment or presents extraordinary 22 circumstances justifying relief under Rule 60(b). He requests the Court to “sever and 23 dismiss the Trust claims without prejudice,” and “grant leave for Wagoner to amend 24 individual claims pro se.” (Doc. 31 at 5; Doc. 32-1 at 5.) Notably, the Trust and Plaintiff 25 Wagoner brought the exact same claims arising from the same facts (see Doc. 1-1). Plaintiff 26 Wagoner had an opportunity to, and did, litigate his own claims in a pro se capacity. He 27 does not present any independent basis for relief from the Judgment as to him individually, 28 making it inappropriate to grant him leave to amend his claims. 1 It is true that a pro se litigant cannot represent others, such as a trust entity. C.E. 2 Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987); Alpha Land Co. v. 3 Little, 238 F.R.D. 497, 502 (E.D. Cal. 2006). Despite bringing the improper representation 4 to the Court’s attention, Plaintiff Wagoner continues to act for the Trust by presently 5 moving for relief on its behalf. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff Wagoner’s Motion 6 but will permit the Trust to file its own motion for such relief. The Court separately notes 7 that there is a pending Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 28) against both Plaintiffs. No 8 later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, the Trust shall obtain counsel who 9 shall enter a proper notice of appearance in this matter. Should no counsel enter a notice of 10 appearance for the Trust, the Trust shall be dismissed as an impermissible party to this 11 action. If counsel enters an appearance within the time prescribed, the Trust—through its 12 counsel—may file a motion for relief from judgment and a responsive brief to the Motion 13 for Attorney’s Fees no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. This Order 14 has no effect upon the briefing deadlines imposed upon Plaintiff Wagoner as set forth in 15 the Court’s prior Order (Doc. 30). 16 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Judgment under 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and (b)(6) (Doc. 31). 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than fourteen (14) days from the date 19 of this Order, Catalina Seaward Trust shall obtain counsel who shall enter a proper notice 20 of appearance in this matter. Should no counsel enter a notice of appearance for Catalina 21 Seaward Trust in the time prescribed, the Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss Catalina 22 Seaward Trust as an impermissible party to this action. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if counsel enters an appearance within the time 24 prescribed, Plaintiff Catalina Seaward Trust—through its counsel—may file a motion for 25 relief from judgment and a responsive brief to the Motion for Attorney’s Fees no later than
26 27 28 1 || thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. This Order has no effect upon the briefing || deadlines imposed upon Plaintiff Wagoner as set forth in the Court’s prior Order (Doc. 30). 3 Dated this 20th day of January, 2026. CN
Unie States#District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gary L. Wagoner, et al. v. State Industrial Products Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-l-wagoner-et-al-v-state-industrial-products-corporation-azd-2026.