Shelby V. Fratello and Ryne M. Seeto v. Dan Wilde, et al.

D. Nevada

Shelby V. Fratello and Ryne M. Seeto v. Dan Wilde, et al.

DecidedNovember 5, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01606

StatusUnknown

This text of Shelby V. Fratello and Ryne M. Seeto v. Dan Wilde, et al. (Shelby V. Fratello and Ryne M. Seeto v. Dan Wilde, et al.) 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

Shelby V. Fratello and Ryne M. Seeto v. Dan Wilde, et al., (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 SHELBY V. FRATELLO and RYNE M. Case No.: 2:25-cv-01606-APG-EJY SEETO, 4 Order Plaintiff 5 [ECF Nos. 5, 6, 9, 15, 18, 19] v. 6 DAN WILDE, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 The complaint in this case is captioned in the names of plaintiffs Shelby Fratello and 10 Ryne Seeto. They seek in part to enjoin aspects of state child custody and welfare proceedings 11 related to a minor child. To the extent the plaintiffs seek to enjoin ongoing state child welfare or 12 custody proceedings, I deny that relief under the Younger abstention doctrine. See Yelp Inc. v. 13 Paxton, 137 F.4th 944, 950 (9th Cir. 2025); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 14 Further, there is no properly signed complaint on file. Neither the complaint, nor any 15 other document the plaintiffs have filed, is signed by a wet ink signature of either plaintiff. The 16 defendants note that this is improper because it does not allow for them to discern who is 17 actually filing these documents should they later seek some form of sanction or other punitive or 18 compensatory measure. The lack of signatures raises another issue because the plaintiffs are pro 19 se. A pro se plaintiff can represent himself or herself, but one pro se party cannot represent 20 another. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, 21 absent each plaintiff signing each filing that they want to pursue, I cannot discern if one pro se 22 plaintiff is improperly attempting to represent another. Accordingly, going forward from here, 23 1 each plaintiff must personally sign each document with a wet ink signature if that plaintiff wants 2 that document to apply to him or her. 3 Thus, there is no operative signed complaint on file. And there is confusion about 4 whether the plaintiffs are withdrawing any federal claims so they can return to state court or 5 whether they are asserting federal claims in this court. See ECF Nos. 1 (defendants removing the

6 case based on federal question); 6 (plaintiffs moving to remand because they dismiss their 7 federal claim without prejudice); 9 (plaintiffs subsequently seeking relief for federal 8 constitutional rights violations, which would present a federal question). I therefore grant the 9 plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must either (a) assert only 10 state law claims, at which point I will remand this case to state court, or (b) assert at least one 11 federal claim, at which point I will keep the case. The amended complaint must be signed with a 12 wet ink signature by each plaintiff who wants to be on the case. In crafting the amended 13 complaint, the plaintiffs should consider the arguments that the defendants raised in their motion 14 to dismiss (ECF No. 5).

15 Finally, I deny all pending motions without prejudice because there is no complaint on 16 file signed by any plaintiff. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence to support the plaintiffs’ 17 various motions for relief because they are not signed by any plaintiff, and some of the relief that 18 the plaintiffs request would effectively enjoin the state proceedings, such as returning the child. 19 See ECF No. 15 at 5. That is barred by Younger. The request for evidence preservation is moot 20 because the defendants are already under a duty to preserve evidence. See Ryan v. Editions Ltd. 21 W., Inc., 786 F.3d 754, 766 (9th Cir. 2015) (A party has a duty to preserve documents when it 22 has “some notice that the documents were potentially relevant to the litigation”). Finally, the 23 1}request that I order an independent medical exam of the child is not sufficiently supported to grant it at this time. 3 I THEREFORE ORDER that the plaintiffs’ complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs may file an amended complaint by December 5, 2025. Failure to file an amended complaint that complies with this order by that date will result in this case 6}| being dismissed without prejudice. 7 I FURTHER ORDER that all pending motions (ECF Nos. 5, 6, 9, 15, 18, 19) are DENIED. 9 DATED this 5th day of November, 2025. 10 OI ANDREWP.GORDON SS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 SHELBY V. FRATELLO and RYNE M. Case No.: 2:25-cv-01606-APG-EJY SEETO, 4 Order Plaintiff 5 [ECF Nos. 5, 6, 9, 15, 18, 19] v. 6 DAN WILDE, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 The complaint in this case is captioned in the names of plaintiffs Shelby Fratello and 10 Ryne Seeto. They seek in part to enjoin aspects of state child custody and welfare proceedings 11 related to a minor child. To the extent the plaintiffs seek to enjoin ongoing state child welfare or 12 custody proceedings, I deny that relief under the Younger abstention doctrine. See Yelp Inc. v. 13 Paxton, 137 F.4th 944, 950 (9th Cir. 2025); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 14 Further, there is no properly signed complaint on file. Neither the complaint, nor any 15 other document the plaintiffs have filed, is signed by a wet ink signature of either plaintiff. The 16 defendants note that this is improper because it does not allow for them to discern who is 17 actually filing these documents should they later seek some form of sanction or other punitive or 18 compensatory measure. The lack of signatures raises another issue because the plaintiffs are pro 19 se. A pro se plaintiff can represent himself or herself, but one pro se party cannot represent 20 another. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, 21 absent each plaintiff signing each filing that they want to pursue, I cannot discern if one pro se 22 plaintiff is improperly attempting to represent another. Accordingly, going forward from here, 23 1 each plaintiff must personally sign each document with a wet ink signature if that plaintiff wants 2 that document to apply to him or her. 3 Thus, there is no operative signed complaint on file. And there is confusion about 4 whether the plaintiffs are withdrawing any federal claims so they can return to state court or 5 whether they are asserting federal claims in this court. See ECF Nos. 1 (defendants removing the

6 case based on federal question); 6 (plaintiffs moving to remand because they dismiss their 7 federal claim without prejudice); 9 (plaintiffs subsequently seeking relief for federal 8 constitutional rights violations, which would present a federal question). I therefore grant the 9 plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must either (a) assert only 10 state law claims, at which point I will remand this case to state court, or (b) assert at least one 11 federal claim, at which point I will keep the case. The amended complaint must be signed with a 12 wet ink signature by each plaintiff who wants to be on the case. In crafting the amended 13 complaint, the plaintiffs should consider the arguments that the defendants raised in their motion 14 to dismiss (ECF No. 5).

15 Finally, I deny all pending motions without prejudice because there is no complaint on 16 file signed by any plaintiff. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence to support the plaintiffs’ 17 various motions for relief because they are not signed by any plaintiff, and some of the relief that 18 the plaintiffs request would effectively enjoin the state proceedings, such as returning the child. 19 See ECF No. 15 at 5. That is barred by Younger. The request for evidence preservation is moot 20 because the defendants are already under a duty to preserve evidence. See Ryan v. Editions Ltd. 21 W., Inc., 786 F.3d 754, 766 (9th Cir. 2015) (A party has a duty to preserve documents when it 22 has “some notice that the documents were potentially relevant to the litigation”). Finally, the 23 1}request that I order an independent medical exam of the child is not sufficiently supported to grant it at this time. 3 I THEREFORE ORDER that the plaintiffs’ complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs may file an amended complaint by December 5, 2025. Failure to file an amended complaint that complies with this order by that date will result in this case 6}| being dismissed without prejudice. 7 I FURTHER ORDER that all pending motions (ECF Nos. 5, 6, 9, 15, 18, 19) are DENIED. 9 DATED this 5th day of November, 2025. 10 OI ANDREWP.GORDON SS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Shelby V. Fratello and Ryne M. Seeto v. Dan Wilde, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelby-v-fratello-and-ryne-m-seeto-v-dan-wilde-et-al-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack