Seward v. Bisignano

D. Nevada

Seward v. Bisignano

DecidedMay 19, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00857

StatusUnknown

This text of Seward v. Bisignano (Seward v. Bisignano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seward v. Bisignano, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7| SHADAE RAE SEWARD, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00857-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9] v. FRANK J. BISIGNANO, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of her child challenging the denial of the child’s disability 13] claim. See Docket No. 1-1. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The Ninth Circuit has held that non- attorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing an action on behalf of his or her child.” Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997).! Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered 16] to retain counsel to litigate this case. Counsel must file a notice of appearance to represent Plaintiff 17] by July 18, 2025. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: May 19, 2025 ,

Nancy J\Koppe 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26) ————__"DW@/»/_> ' The Ninth Circuit has not recognized exceptions to this rule as to any particular type of case. See Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary Sch., 110 F.4th 1177, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2024) (recognizing out-of-circuit authority creating an exception to the counsel mandate in the social security context, but finding that such cases are inconsistent with binding Ninth Circuit precedent).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7| SHADAE RAE SEWARD, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00857-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9] v. FRANK J. BISIGNANO, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of her child challenging the denial of the child’s disability 13] claim. See Docket No. 1-1. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The Ninth Circuit has held that non- attorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing an action on behalf of his or her child.” Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997).! Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered 16] to retain counsel to litigate this case. Counsel must file a notice of appearance to represent Plaintiff 17] by July 18, 2025. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: May 19, 2025 ,

Nancy J\Koppe 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26) ————__"DW@/»/_> ' The Ninth Circuit has not recognized exceptions to this rule as to any particular type of case. See Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary Sch., 110 F.4th 1177, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2024) (recognizing out-of-circuit authority creating an exception to the counsel mandate in the social security context, but finding that such cases are inconsistent with binding Ninth Circuit precedent).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Seward v. Bisignano, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seward-v-bisignano-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack