Landon v. Ply-Gem Windows

Opinion

1 2

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

9 10 STEPHEN LEE LANDON, CASE NO. C23-1747JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 PLY-GEM WINDOWS, 13 Defendant. 14

15 Before the court are two motions filed by Defendant Ply Gem Pacific Windows 16 Corp. (“Ply Gem”): (1) a motion to strike and for sanctions based on the unauthorized 17 practice of law (Mot. to Strike (Dkt. # 13)), and (2) a motion to dismiss (MTD (Dkt. 18 # 15)).1 In its motion to strike, Ply Gem argues that Plaintiff Stephen Lee Landon—who 19 is proceeding pro se (see Dkt.)—is actually represented by an individual named Brent 20 Parks, who is not a lawyer but a self-proclaimed paralegal employed by a company called 21

1 Ply Gem was incorrectly named in this action as “Ply Gem Windows.” (See MTD at 22 1.) 1 National Legal Assistants, which provides legal services to self-represented parties across 2 the country. (See generally Mot. to Strike); see also Home Page, National Legal

3 Assistants, https://www.nationallegalassistants.com/ (last visited Mar. 21, 2024). On 4 March 21, 2024, the court held a telephone conference, in which Mr. Landon informed 5 the court that Mr. Parks has indeed assisted with the preparation of Mr. Landon’s 6 pleadings in this case. (See Min. Entry (Dkt. # 19).) Although Mr. Landon appeared for 7 the hearing, he was not prepared to answer the court’s questions and the court therefore 8 adjourned. The court ORDERS as follows:

9 1. Ply Gem’s motion to strike and for sanctions (Dkt. # 13) is GRANTED in 10 part and DENIED in part. The court STRIKES the following pleadings based on the 11 unauthorized practice of law: Mr. Landon’s (1) complaint (Dkt. # 1-1); (2) first motion 12 for leave to amend (Dkt. # 8); (3) amended complaint (Dkt. # 12); (4) second motion for 13 leave to amend (Dkt. # 17); and (5) notice of errata (Dkt. # 18). The court denies Ply

14 Gem’s request for sanctions. 15 2. Ply Gem’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 15) is DENIED as moot. 16 3. The court GRANTS Mr. Landon leave to file a second amended complaint 17 by no later than April 5, 2024. Mr. Landon is advised that, going forward, he must either 18 hire a licensed attorney or truly proceed pro se in this matter, meaning he must prepare

19 his own pleadings and manage this case without the advice of Mr. Parks or other 20 nonlawyers. Should any future pleadings reflect the unauthorized practice of law,2 the 21

2 The unauthorized practice of law is a crime in Washington. RCW 2.48.180(3)(a); see 22 also RCW 2.48.180(2)(a) (“The following constitutes unlawful practice of law . . . (a) A 1 court will not hesitate to strike the affected pleadings, impose sanctions, and dismiss this 2 case.

3 4. The court resets the hearing for Monday, March 25, 2024, at 10:00 A.M. 4 Instructions for calling in to the conference will be sent to Mr. Landon and counsel for 5 Ply Gem by email. Mr. Landon shall appear at the hearing having reviewed the pleadings 6 in this case and prepared to answer the court’s questions. Failure to appear may result in 7 sanctions. 8 Dated this 21st day of March, 2024. A 9 JAMES L. ROBART 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 nonlawyer practices law, or holds himself or herself out as entitled to practice law.”); State v. 18 Yishmael, 456 P.3d 1172, 1180 (Wash. 2020) (holding that the unauthorized practice of law is a strict liability crime). The Washington Supreme Court has explained that 19 [t]he term “practice of law” includes not only the doing or performing of services 20 in a court of justice, in any matter depending therein, throughout its various stages, and in conformity with the adopted rules of procedure, but in a larger sense includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by 21 which legal rights are secured. 22 In re Droker & Mulholland, 370 P.2d 242, 248 (Wash. 1962).