D-Beam Ltd. Partnership v. Roller Derby Skates
Decision Date | 06 May 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 01-56007.,01-56007. |
Citation | 366 F.3d 972 |
Parties | D-BEAM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, personally and sole General Partner, Inclusive, Plaintiff, and Brian Lee Evans, personally, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROLLER DERBY SKATES, INC; John Does Entities, 1-5 inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Michael Sacksteder and Kohi Nguyen, Court Appointed Pro Bono Counsel, Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA; Brian Lee Evans, Pro Se, Newport Beach, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Karin D. Vogel and Polly Towill, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton LLP, San Diego, CA; Richard H. Chapman, FagelHaber LLC, Chicago, IL, for the defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-98-00705-DOC.
Before HALL, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Brian Evans invented a "Solid State Skate Truck" designed to be incorporated into roller skates and skateboards. Patents were secured by D-Beam, a California limited partnership of which Evans is the general partner and majority owner. D-Beam licensed the patents to Roller Derby, an Illinois corporation. Roller Derby twice loaned Evans money pursuant to promissory notes that were repayable out of his share of D-Beam's royalty payments.
Evans, representing himself and D-Beam pro se, filed suit against Roller Derby and others in California state court on the following causes of action: breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, embezzlement, usury, and civil conspiracy. All allegations except the usury claim arose out of the licensing contract between D-Beam and Roller Derby. The usury claim arose out of the promissory notes between Evans and Roller Derby.
Roller Derby filed a timely notice of removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Evans and D-Beam, still represented by Evans pro se, objected to removal and filed a motion to remand. The motion to remand was denied.
The district court demanded that Evans retain counsel to represent D-Beam, pursuant to a local rule requiring corporations and other entities to be represented by counsel. While D-Beam was represented by counsel, all the claims relating to Roller Derby's conduct under the licensing agreement were disposed of on summary judgment. Evans's usury claim proceeded through discovery and a five day bench trial, Evans again representing himself pro se, after which the court entered a judgment in favor of Roller Derby on that claim.
Evans, pro se, filed a notice of appeal with this court. We dismiss all claims on behalf of D-Beam for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction over Evans's usury claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the district court.
In supplemental briefing, prepared by pro bono counsel appointed by this Court, Evans appeals claims on behalf of D-Beam, a limited liability partnership of which he is the majority shareholder. Because Evans appealed pro se, we lack jurisdiction over D-Beam's claims and they are dismissed.
It is a longstanding rule that"[c]orporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney."1 Licht v. Am. W. Airlines (In re Am. W. Airlines), 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir.1994); see also United States v. High Country Broad. Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir.1993) ( ). In Bigelow v. Brady, this circuit held that a notice of appeal signed and filed on behalf of a corporation by a corporate officer was valid even though it was not signed and filed by counsel. 179 F.3d 1164, 1165 (9th Cir.1999). Although in this case Evans signed the notice of appeal, he did not sign on behalf of the partnership. See Fed. R.App. P. 32(d) ( ). The signature line reads only "Brian Evans, pro se," not "Brian Evans, pro se, and on behalf of D-Beam Limited Partnership," and throughout the notice, Evans refers to "plaintiff," not "plaintiffs." See Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(2) (). Had the notice of appeal, as in Bigelow, related only to claims on behalf of D-Beam, the notice may have been adequate. Here, however, Evans and D-Beam both had potential claims on appeal. Because Evans signed the notice on his own behalf and did not purport to sign on behalf of D-Beam, the notice is inadequate to give notice of D-Beam's intent to appeal notwithstanding the lenity allowed under Bigelow.
Moreover, in Bigelow, after the corporate officer filed the notice, the 179 F.3d at 1165. Id. In contrast, Evans filed the opening brief in this case pro se, and neither he nor D-Beam were represented by counsel until this court sua sponte appointed pro bono counsel to "benefit the court's review." Allowing Evans to advocate D-Beam's claims, when he clearly intended to proceed pro se and counsel was not retained prior to motions or briefing on appeal — and then subsequently only upon court appointment — would eviscerate the requirement that corporations and other entities be represented by counsel. See High Country Broad., 3 F.3d at 1245. As the Bigelow panel expressly noted, 179 F.3d at 1165. Though a corporate officer's signing the notice of appeal does not render that notice invalid, all subsequent motions and pleadings must be filed by counsel. Thus, even if Evans's notice of appeal were adequate to assert D-Beam's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nocula v. Ugs Corp.
...signed the notice of appeal on behalf of the corporation. Bigelow has since been distinguished by D-Beam Ltd. Partnership v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 974 (9th Cir. 2004), which addressed whether a notice sufficiently indicated both a corporate president's and the corporation......
-
Tailford v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.
...We review the district court's denial of Plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court de novo. D-Beam Ltd. P'ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc. , 366 F.3d 972, 974 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004). We also consider whether there is constitutional standing de novo. Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles , 279 ......
-
Wri Opportunity Loans II LLC v. Cooper
...courts have long accepted a common law doctrine known as the "interest contingency rule." (D-Beam Limited Partnership v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc. (9th Cir. 2004) 366 F.3d 972, 975; Thomassen v. Carr (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 341, 346-349, 58 Cal.Rptr. 297 According to this rule, a loan that wi......
-
Sream, Inc. v. Blow & Tell Corp., 2:18-cv-03056 JAM AC
...answer on behalf of BATC. ECF No. 5. On plaintiffs' motion, the court struck the answer pursuant to D-Beam Ltd. P'ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004) (corporations must appear in court through an attorney), and gave defendant until March 1, 2019 to retain......