Black v. Ameritel Inns, Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 November 2003
• Docket Number: No. 29580.,29580.
• Parties: Robert BLACK, an individual, and Robert Marks, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERITEL INNS, INC., Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

81 P.3d 416

139 Idaho 511

Robert BLACK, an individual, and Robert Marks, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERITEL INNS, INC., Defendant-Respondent.

No. 29580.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, September 2003 Term.

November 25, 2003.

John Todd, Boise, for appellants. Russell Jones argued.

Jim Jones, Boise, for respondent. Jim Jones argued.

KIDWELL, Justice.

Robert Black and Robert Marks (Appellants) sued Ameritel Inns, Inc. (Ameritel), alleging they were denied accommodations because they were Gypsies. The Appellants' attorney, licensed in Washington but not Idaho, filed a complaint in Idaho district court and signed the Appellants' names as the agent of unrepresented persons. The district court granted Ameritel's motion to strike the complaint because it was not signed as required by Rule 11(a)(1). The district court rejected the Appellants' subsequent motion to reconsider after an attorney licensed in Idaho filed an amended complaint on behalf of the Appellants. The Appellants appealed and the Idaho Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment. This Court now affirms the judgment of the district court.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Appellants allege Ameritel denied them accommodations because they were Gypsies. The Appellants are residents of Washington. They hired an attorney licensed to practice law in Washington, but not Idaho. As required by Idaho law, the Washington attorney filed a complaint with the Idaho Commission On Human Rights (Commission) on behalf of the Appellants before filing this lawsuit. Idaho Code § 67-5908(2) (2002). The Commission dismissed their complaint. Upon the dismissal of a complaint before the Commission, a complainant has 90 days to file a civil action in district court. Id.

On March 23, 2001, the ninetieth day (90) from the day the Commission dismissed the Appellants' complaint, the Washington attorney filed this lawsuit in Idaho state court alleging a violation of I.C. § 67-5909(5)(a). The Washington attorney signed the names of the Appellants, followed by his initials, as the agent of unrepresented parties. The Washington attorney claims he associated himself with an Idaho attorney for purposes of filing a lawsuit in Idaho state court, but learned the Idaho attorney abandoned the case at the last minute. On May 29, 2001, Ameritel moved to strike the Appellants' complaint on the ground it did not meet the signature requirements of I.R.C.P. 11(a)(1). On June 26, 2001, the Appellants filed an amended complaint using Idaho counsel.

On August 1, 2001, the district court granted Ameritel's motion to strike the complaint on the ground the complaint did not meet the signature requirements of Rule 11(a)(1) because the Washington attorney, not the Appellants, signed the complaint. On August 13, 2001, the Appellants filed a motion to reconsider. On December 4, 2001, the district court denied the motion to reconsider on the grounds the original complaint was defective, so the 90-day statute of limitation was not tolled by filing the original complaint and because the original complaint was defective, the amended complaint did not "relate back" to the date the original complaint was filed. As a result, the amended complaint was filed outside the 90-day limitation period.

The Appellants sought an appeal from the judgment of the district court and the Court of Appeals reversed the district court. The Court of Appeals determined that the original complaint was defective for purposes of Rule 11(a)(1) because an agent signed on behalf of the Appellants, but that the complaint should be treated as unsigned rather than in violation of Rule 11(a)(1). The Court of Appeals then reasoned that since the complaint was unsigned, the Appellants, pursuant to the Rule, could promptly remedy the defect by properly signing the complaint. The Court of Appeals determined the Appellants were notified of the defect on the date Ameritel filed its motion to strike. As a result, the Court of Appeals reasoned it was 27 days from the date the Appellants were made aware of the defect until they filed their amended complaint. The Court of Appeals then held 27 days was prompt; thus, the defect was properly remedied. Ameritel timely sought, and this Court granted, review of the Court of Appeals' decision. We now affirm the district court.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The interpretation of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure is a matter of law. Hutchinson v. State, 134 Idaho 18, 21, 995 P.2d 363, 366 (Ct.App.1999). This Court exercises free review over matters of law. Iron Eagle Dev., L.L.C. v. Quality Design Sys., Inc., 138 Idaho 487, 491, 65 P.3d 509, 513 (2003).

III. ANALYSIS

A. The Signature By An Agent Of An Unrepresented Party To A Civil Lawsuit Does Not Satisfy The Signature Requirements Of I.R.C.P. 11(a)(1).

According to Idaho law:

[e]very pleading, motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one (1) licensed attorney of record of the state of Idaho, in the attorney's individual name, whose address shall be stated before the same may be filed. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign the pleading, motion or other paper and state the party's address.

I.R.C.P. Rule 11. The express language of Rule 11 requires either a party, or a party's Idaho licensed attorney to sign the pleading. The issue of whether an agent can sign on behalf of a pro se plaintiff is one of first impression in Idaho. There seems to be no persuasive case law from other jurisdictions directly on point. However, some cases may provide a framework for analyzing the issue.

Appellants argue that Federal case law allows an agent to sign on behalf of an unrepresented party. "When a court is otherwise assured that the party endorses the pleading, even a complete failure to sign has been termed a mere technical defect." Covington v. Cole, 528 F.2d 1365, 1370 (5th Cir.1976). In Covington, a complaint was signed not by the plaintiff, but rather by the plaintiff's wife as "attorney in fact." Id. at 1369. The Court reasoned "[w]ithout deciding whether a signature by a spouse as attorney in fact can be sufficient under Rule 11, we can easily conclude that sua sponte dismissal with prejudice is not a proper disposition in face of this arguable defect, at most a technical defect." Id. Furthermore, "Mrs. Covington was purporting to be Mr. Covington's authorized agent, and did not represent herself to be a lawyer." Id. However, it should be noted that "Edwin Covington himself signed the request for a certificate of probable cause." Id. Thus, the Court was assured the plaintiff assented to the filing of the complaint.

In this case, the Appellants' Washington counsel wrote and signed a complaint on behalf of the Appellants. The attorney was licensed in Washington, but not licensed in Idaho. In Covington, there is no indication that Mrs. Covington also wrote the complaint as the Washington attorney did in this case. See Covington, 528 F.2d at 1365

. Although in Covington the court discussed that a signature by a spouse as attorney in fact was a mere "technical defect," this case presents a larger problem than a mere technical defect. Simply, the failure to sign has been considered a mere technical defect; yet, under appropriate circumstances, such as this case, it may constitute grounds for striking the pleading. See Wrenn v. New York City Health Hospitals Corp., 104 F.R.D. 553 (1985).

Although pertaining to notice of appeals rather than the filing of a complaint, by analogy, "a notice of appeal signed by a nonlawyer on his own behalf and on behalf of another effects an appeal as to the signor." Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1021 (5th Cir.1998). Thus, both pro se litigants must sign a notice of appeal. Carter v. Stalder, 60 F.3d 238, 239 (5th Cir.1995); see Church v. Comm'r of IRS, 810 F.2d 19 (2nd Cir.1987)

. The Gonzales Court distinguished the situation where a nonlawyer signs the notice of appeal on behalf of another and where a party submits the notice unsigned. Gonzales, 157 F.3d at 1021. "Where a nonlawyer purports to file a notice of appeal for another, no signing or ratification by the thus `represented' party after expiration of the [statute of limitations] period can be effective." Id. at 1022. Thus, a nonlawyer cannot sign a notice of appeal on behalf of another. Id. Although the Washington attorney did not sign and file the Appellants' claim under his own name, i.e., as Washington attorney, he signed the Appellants' names and initialed his own, as their agent. In conclusion, this Court holds that pursuant to the signature requirements of I.R.C.P. Rule 11(a)(1), an agent cannot sign a complaint for unrepresented parties.

B. Because An Agent Cannot Sign A Complaint, The Complaint Should Be Treated As Signed In Violation Of The Rule.

Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure require pleadings to be signed by either a licensed Idaho attorney or a pro se party. I.R.C.P. Rule 11(a)(1). The rule also provides that "[i]f a pleading, motion or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader or movant." Id. There seems to be no case law interpreting Rule 11 to aid the analysis as to whether the Appellants' first complaint was unsigned or signed in violation of the rule. However, a closer look can aid this Court's interpretation.

The rule requires a signature of only two varieties, i.e., licensed attorney, or pro se party. The rule also allows a cure for pleadings with an omitted signature. It follows that the provision allowing a cure is intended to benefit parties or attorneys who inadvertently omit signing their pleadings. A cure is provided so that cases can be heard on their merits because "Rule 11 is not intended to be a stumbling block to the pursuit of justice. The primary goal in the application of Rule 11 is to deter pleading and motion abuses." Hadlock v....