Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

40 F.3d 1058

Docket No. 94-15631.

Licht v. America West Airlines

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Oct. 17, 1994*. Decided Nov. 25, 1994.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1994-11-25

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries, for example, that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel, [(citations omitted)]. As the courts have recognized, the rationale for that rule applies equally to all artificial entities. Thus, save in a few aberrant cases, [(footnote omitted)] the lower courts have uniformly held that 28 U.S.C. § 1654 , providing that “parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel,” does not allow corporations, partnerships, or associations to appear in federal court otherwise than through a licensed attorney, [(citations omitted)].”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Stapleton v. Poconos Land, LLC (In re Poconos Land, LLC)

“`[c]orporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.'”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Advocates for Responsible Dev't v. Wwgmhb

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1654

Relies on Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council · C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States · Eagle Associates v. Bank of Montreal

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1994-11-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably United States v. Cocivera (1996), Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc. (2008)

8 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

150199420002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Dr. Seymour Licht, pro se.

Pamela M. Jimenez, Lord, Bissell, & Brook, Chicago, IL, for appellees.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

Before: BROWNING, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Seymour Licht appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") affirmance of the bankruptcy court's order barring Licht, a non-attorney, from representing See More Light Investments, a business association in which Licht was the senior partner.

¶2

Corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir.1987); Church of the New Testament v. United States, 783 F.2d 771, 773-74 (9th Cir.1986); see also Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1309-10 (2d Cir.1991) (partnership not allowed to be represented by non-attorney partner).

¶3

In United States v. Reeves, however, we allowed a non-attorney partner to represent his interest in a partnership pursuant to Alaskan partnership statute. 431 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir.1970). The Supreme Court in Rowland v. California Men's Colony recently criticized our holding in Reeves and observed that "save in a few aberrant cases [including Reeves], the lower courts have uniformly held that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1654, providing that 'parties may plead and conduct their own case personally or by counsel,' does not allow corporations, partnerships, or associations to appear in federal court otherwise than through a licensed attorney." --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993) (footnote omitted and emphasis added). Thus, to the extent that Reeves stood for the proposition that non-attorney members of a partnership could appear on behalf of the partnership, the Supreme Court in California Men's Colony has overruled that holding. See --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 721.

¶4

The remaining issue regarding Licht's right to represent himself pro se as an individual creditor of the debtor, America West Airlines, Inc. is addressed in a separate memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this opinion. In the disposition, we vacate part of the order and remand to the bankruptcy court.

¶5

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Licht's request for oral argument is denied

/40/f3d/1058 · .json · Public domain