Onyx Enterprise Trust v. Ally Financial Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: September 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02184
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Onyx Enterprise Trust, No. CV-25-02184-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Ally Financial Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Pro Se Plaintiff Onyx Enterprise Trust’s (“Onyx”) 16 Application to Proceed in the District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs through its 17 fiduciary, Willy Alohalani Tuanaki (“Tuanaki”). (Doc. 2). The Court will deny Onyx’s 18 and Tuanaki’s Application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) for three reasons, as 19 discussed below. 20 To start, though “a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, 21 that privilege is personal to him.” See Multi-Denominational Ministry of Cannabis & 22 Rastafari, Inc. v. Holder, 365 F. App’x 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissing a party as 23 plaintiff because it was an entity not represented by counsel); see also C.E. Pope Equity 24 Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that a trust can only appear 25 through counsel). Here, Onyx seeks to initiate a lawsuit against several defendants 26 through its fiduciary, Tuanaki, but does not have attorney representation. (Doc. 1). To 27 proceed any further with any of its claims, Onyx, the real party in interest, must obtain 28 counsel. 1 Second, artificial entities like a trust cannot proceed as IFP status in a lawsuit. See 2 Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 203 3 (1993) (standing for the proposition that only natural persons and not entities can proceed 4 in forma pauperis as limited by 28 U.S. § 1915). As a trust, Onyx cannot seek IFP status, 5 even through its fiduciary, Tuanaki. 6 Lastly, and relatedly, only pro se parties themselves can seek IFP status. See Fed. 7 Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Yu Hui Jian, 2014 WL 12860020, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 26, 8 2014) (dismissing an IFP application because plaintiff attempted to file for IFP status on 9 behalf of a trust). Here, Tuanaki filled out the A0 239 Form with his own information, 10 but seemingly on behalf of Onyx. (Doc. 2 at 1). Tuanaki is not entitled to file an IFP 11 action on behalf of a trust. Even assuming that a trust can proceed in forma pauperis—it 12 cannot—the IFP application should have included Onyx’s information, not Tuanaki’s. 13 In sum, Onyx, proceeding through its fiduciary, Tuanaki, is ineligible to proceed 14 as IFP status. 15 Accordingly, 16 IT IS ORDERED that the Application to Proceed in District Court Without 17 Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff Onyx shall have thirty (30) days to obtain 19 counsel and file a Notice of Appearance. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that unless Plaintiff Onyx pays the filing fee in 21 full on or before September 19, 2025 the Clerk of Court shall dismiss this action without 22 further notice to Plaintiff. 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the following motions are denied as moot: 2|| Motion for Judicial Notice of Verified Affidavit and Estoppel Record (Doc. 6); Motion for Judicial Notice of Verified Estoppel Record and Incorporated Affidavits (Doc. 10); Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14); and Notice of Judicial Delay (Doc. 16). 5 Dated this 4th day of September, 2025. 6 7 ZL Luu □ 8 norable'Diang/4. Humfetewa 9 United States District Fudge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-