Jo Ann Hoeppner-Cruz v. Robert W Brower

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 26, 2026
• Docket: 3:24-cv-05170
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JO ANN HOEPPNER-CRUZ, Case No. 24-cv-05170-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO EXTEND 9 v. TIME

10 ROBERT W BROWER, Re: Dkt. No. 71 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff Jo Ann Hoeppner-Cruz, in her capacity as the Trustee of The Anthony J. Freitas 14 and Jacqueline Hoeppner-Freitas 1997 Revocable Trust, brings this case under California Probate 15 Code section 17200 against Defendant Robert Brower related to the sale of property under the 16 Trust. ECF No. 1.1 17 On December 17, 2025, the Court granted Thomas Dwayne Reid’s motion to withdraw as 18 counsel for Hoeppner-Cruz. ECF No. 68. The Court ordered Hoeppner-Cruz to file a notice of 19 appearance by new counsel or status report indicating that she has not found counsel by January 20 15, 2026. Id. On January 14, 2026, Hoeppner-Cruz filed a status report stating that she has been 21 unable to retain an attorney to represent her in this matter. ECF No. 70. On January 15, 2026, 22 Hoeppner-Cruz filed the instant Motion to Extend Time. ECF No. 71. Hoeppner-Cruz states that 23 she began looking for a new lawyer in November 2025, requests the Court extend the time “to 24 secure new counsel in this case,” and states she does “not want the case to be dismissed.” Id. She 25 attaches a list of lawyers that she has contacted to date. Id. Brower did not file a response to the 26 Motion to Extend Time. See Civ. L.R. 7-11(b) (explaining response to administrative motion 27 ] “must be filed no later than 4 days after the motion has been filed”). 2 The Court GRANTS Hoeppner-Cruz’s Motion to Extend Time. The Court ORDERS 3 Hoeppner-Cruz to file a notice of appearance by new counsel or status report indicating that she 4 || has not found counsel by February 19, 2026. 5 Hoeppner-Cruz 1s reminded that under California law, a non-attorney trustee cannot 6 || represent a trust in a nonprobate general civil suit. Aulisio v. Bancroft, 230 Cal. App. 4th 1516, 7 1523 (2014); see Ziegler v. Nickel, 64 Cal. App. 4th 545, 549 (1998) (“A non-attorney trustee who 8 || represents the trust in court is representing and affecting the interests of the beneficiary and is thus 9 || engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.”). Hoeppner-Cruz is again advised that failure to 10 || retain substitute counsel could result in dismissal of the case. Cf Brignac v. Yelp Inc., No. 19-cv- 11 01188-EMC, 2019 WL 5268898, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2019) (dismissing claim “for lack of 12 || standing and failure to comply with Civil Local Rule 3-9(b)” where non-attorney brought claim on 13 || behalf of a corporation); Emp. Painters’ Trust v. Ethan Enters., Inc., 480 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 14 || 2007) (affirming entry of default judgment where corporate defendant failed to obtain substitute 2 15. || counsel). A 16 The Court ORDERS Reid to provide a copy of this order to Hoeppner-Cruz and file an 17 || attestation to that effect no later than January 28, 2026. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 || Dated: January 26, 2026

THOMAS S. HIXSON 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28