UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 12, 2011
FOX HOLLOW OF TURLOCK DLB OWNERS'ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,
RICHARD SINCLAIR, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER BRIEFING
On June 6, 2011, Plaintiffs/Defendants/Cross-Defendants Fox Hollow of Turlock Owners' Association, California Equity Management Group, Inc., and Andrew Katakis filed a motion to compel against Defendants Mauctrst, LLC, Lairtrust, LLC, and Capstone, LLC. The motion was withdrawn as to Mauctrst, LLC. According to the certificate of service, the motion was served on Defendant Brandon Sinclair, "c/o Law Offices of Richard C. Sinclair."
On June 8, 2011, this Court granted Steven Stoker's motion to withdraw as counsel for Mauctrst, LLC, Capstone, LLC and Lairtrust, LLC. The Court ordered the entities to file proof of attorney representation within 10 days. On June 17, 2011, Douglas Thornton filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Mauctrst, LLC. Neither Capstone, LLC, nor Lairtrust, LLC, have provided proof of representation.
On June 24, 2011, Defendant Richard Sinclair, who is representing himself pro se in this action, filed an opposition to the motion to compel purportedly on behalf of Capstone, LLC, and Lairtrust, LLC. The caption states that he is "specially appearing" on behalf of Capstone, LLC, and "appearing" on behalf of Lairtrust, LLC.*fn1
This Court has previously cautioned Mr. Sinclair against representing other Defendants in this action. On February 8, 2010, in granting a prior motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Capstone, LLC, and Lairtrust, LLC, the Court stated:
Mr. Sinclair shall not represent any of the Defendants in the within action other than himself, individually, and other than a non-individual Defendant in which he is and at all times has been the sole owner.
Therefore, it is not clear who, if anyone, is properly acting on behalf of Defendants Capstone, LLC, and Lairtrust, LLC, and received notice of this motion. Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to submit further briefing to address this issue within ten (10) days of service of this order. If Mr. Sinclair contends that he is qualified to represent the entities in this matter, his additional briefing should address this issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.