In Re 2nd Chance Investment Group, LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 25, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-00634
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IN RE 2ND CHANCE INVESTMENT Case No. 8:25-cv-00634-FLA GROUP, Case No. 8:22-bk-12142-SC 12

Debtor. 13 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY APPELLANT GEOFF TRAPP IS 14 ENTITLED TO REPRESENT CLOTEE DOWNING 15

16 17 On November 20, 2024, Appellant Geoff Trapp (“Appellant” or “Trapp”), 18 purportedly acting as next friend on behalf of Clotee Downing (“Downing”), filed 19 before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California 20 (“Bankruptcy Court”) an Omnibus Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel and 21 for Relief from Order Authorizing Sale of Real Property (“Omnibus Motion”). Dkt. 22 1-1 at 58.1 23 On March 10, 2025, the Bankruptcy Court denied Downing’s Omnibus Motion 24 on the grounds that “Trapp … has failed to provide evidence that he is authorized and 25 legally permitted to represent Ms. Downing before [the Bankruptcy Court].” Id. at 4. 26

27 1 The court cites documents by the page numbers added by the court’s CM/ECF 28 System, rather than any page numbers included natively. 1 The Bankruptcy Court further noted that, as a non-attorney, Trapp was ineligible to 2 practice law, and that he had not been appointed a next friend, guardian ad litem, or a 3 conservator for Downing. Id. Trapp filed the instant appeal of the Bankruptcy 4 Court’s ruling on March 31, 2025. Id. 5 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2), “[a] minor or an 6 incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a 7 next friend. The court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate 8 order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). However, a “‘next friend’ does not himself become a party 10 to the ... action in which he participates, but simply pursues the cause on behalf of the 11 [person unable to litigate his or her own cause], who remains the real party in 12 interest.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990). The “action must be 13 prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(1). 14 [T]o establish next-friend standing, the putative next friend must 15 show: (1) that the petitioner is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or other similar disability; 16 and (2) the next friend has some significant relationship with, and is 17 truly dedicated to the best interests of, the petitioner. 18 Coal. of Clergy, Laws., & Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1159–60 (9th Cir. 19 2002). “The burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his 20 status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164. 21 Moreover, an incapacitated person appearing through a next friend “would have 22 to be represented by counsel.” Hinojosa v. Warden, SATF/SP, Case No. 2:22-cv- 23 01780-DB-P, 2023 WL 2874169, *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2023). “Although a non- 24 attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to 25 him.” C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). A 26 non-attorney “has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself” or 27 herself. Id. “This rule applies even when a non-lawyer seeks to represent a family 28 member who is a minor or incompetent.” Rosales v. Idaho Dep’t of Health & | | Welfare, 2022 WL 17749262, *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2022); see also Johns v. County of 2 || San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876-77 (9th Cir. 1997) (“It goes without saying that it is not 3 || in the interest of minors or incompetents that they be represented by non-attorneys. 4 | Where they have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to trained legal 5 | assistance so their rights may be fully protected.”’) (citation omitted); Complot v. 6 | JPMorgan Chase Bank, 2023 WL 8234271, at *2—3 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2023) (striking 7 | complaint by non-attorney attempting to bring claims pro se on behalf of his 8 | incapacitated wife in a next friend capacity.). 9 The court is presently unable to determine whether Trapp 1s eligible to represent 10 | Downing. Accordingly, the court ORDERS Trapp to SHOW CAUSE, within thirty 11 | (30) days of the date of this Order, why he should be permitted to represent Downing. 12 | Failure to respond timely may result in the dismissal of this action. 13 Appellant is advised that the court has a Pro Bono Limited-Scope 14 | Representation Pilot Program. More information is available at: 15 | https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/pro-bono/pro-bono-limited-scope- 16 | representation-pilot-program. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 | Dated: September 25, 2025 sco) 2! FERNANDO. AENLLE-ROCHA 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28