James and Elizabeth Console Family v. Hartman

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 14, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01237
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES AND ELIZABETH CONSOLE Case No.: 22-CV-1237-DMS-JLB FAMILY, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 RECONSIDERATION AND v. ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 14 CAUSE ANTHONY MARK HARTMAN, 15 PRIVATE PLACEMENT CAPITAL 16 NOTES II, LLC 17 Defendants. 18 The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of its Order Denying 19 Plaintiff’s Motion for Substitution of Service on an Attorney (ECF No. 9). Motions for 20 reconsideration “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the 21 district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 22 there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 23 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999). 24 Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider permitting Plaintiff to effect service on Mr. 25 William Norman Nettles, whom Plaintiff believes to be Defendant Anthony Mark 26 Hartman’s attorney in another matter. See USA v. Bramlette et al., 19-cr-347 (D.S.C.). 27 Plaintiff’s again point to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and BP Products North 28 America, Inc. v. Dagra, 232 F.R.D. 263, 265 (2005). As stated before, both Rule 4(f)(3) 1 Dagra relate to service of a defendant who is presently, or is believed to be, 2 ||international. Plaintiff now states Defendant “may no longer be in Texas, he could be 3 ||anywhere, he may be international for all we know, as there is no confirmation of his 4 || whereabouts at this time.” (Pl. Mot. at 3.) Unlike the plaintiff in Dagra, here, Plaintiff has 5 ||no evidence demonstrating that Defendant may be located internationally. Even though 6 ||Mr. Nettles may still be retained as counsel for Defendant in the South Carolina criminal 7 ||matter, see USA v. Bramlette et al., 19-cr-347 (D.S.C.), this Court is aware of no 8 precedential authority permitting service to be effected on an attorney representing a 9 ||defendant in another matter. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs motion for 10 || reconsideration. 11 The record reflects Plaintiff has attempted to serve Defendant via certified mail in 12 |}accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and California Code of Civil 13 Procedure §§ 415.30, 415.40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, due to □□□□□□□□□□□ 14 || attempt to effect service by other means, the deadline to demonstrate service has been 15 || effected in this matter is extended to May 26, 2023. 16 Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause as to whether Plaintiff is an individual person, 17 || two individuals, a trust, or a partnership. This is not clear to the Court. Pursuant to Local 18 83.3, only “natural persons” may proceed pro se in this Court. However, a person 19 ||may only appear pro se on behalf of him or herself and has “no authority to appear as an 20 || attorney for others.” McGrath v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 298 F.R.D. 601, 609 (S.D. Cal. 21 || Apr. 10, 2014). Local Rule 83.3 further provides that “corporations, partnerships and other 22 ||legal entities, may appear in court only through an attorney permitted to practice.” 23 (emphasis added). Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide a response to this Court no later than 24 || April 28, 2023. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 ||Dated: April 14, 2023 2 Yarn Yn. 27 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge 28 United States District Court