Li v. Lin

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 9, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01524
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

8 XIAOLEI LI, et al., Case No.: 2:21-cv-01524-JAD-NJK 9 Plaintiffs, Order 10 v. [Docket No. 27, 30] 11 DAVID S. LIN, 12 Defendant. 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant to seek competent 14 counsel. Docket No. 27. Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court requiring Defendant, who is 15 proceeding pro se, to associate with competent counsel. Id. at 5-6. The Court has considered 16 Plaintiffs’ motion and Defendant’s response1. Docket Nos. 27, 29. No reply is necessary. This 17 matter is properly resolved without a hearing. Local Rule 78-1. 18 Parties have the right to conduct their cases pro se. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. See also Winkelman 19 v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 522 (2007)) (“[T]here is no question that a party may 20 represent his or her own interests in federal court without the aid of counsel.”); Simmon v. Hartford 21 Life and Accident Ins. Co., 543 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008). This right is fundamental and can 22 only be constricted in limited circumstances. See e.g., Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Off. Of Educ., 23 502 F.3d 1116, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2007) (while an attorney has the right to proceed pro se in actions 24 related to his own legal interests, there is no pro se right to prosecute actions on behalf of others); 25 26 1 Defendant captions his response as both an objection to Plaintiffs’ motion and a request 27 to strike the underlying motion. Docket Nos. 29, 30. To the extent Defendant seeks to strike the motion, the Court DENIES his request, Docket No. 30, and considers the underlying motion to 28 compel on its merits. 1} Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1989) (Court can appoint counsel for a pro se party when party is incompetent to protect self throughout the litigation). 3 Defendant, who is a licensed attorney in another state, is proceeding pro se in this matter. 4|| See Stoner, 502 F.3d at 1125-26 (right to proceed pro se set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1654 extends to 5] attorneys representing themselves in their own personal cases). Plaintiffs ask the Court to require 6|| Defendant to hire counsel, rather than proceed pro se, because they disagree with some of the 7| factual submissions and legal authorities Defendant relied on in a recent filing. Docket No. 27. 8|| This factual disagreement does not constitute an adequate ground to infringe on a party’s right to 9| proceed pro se. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant to seek 10] competent counsel. Docket No. 27. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: November 9, 2021

14 Date St □□ gistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28