United States District Court, D. Nevada
VIANA B. BAILEY, Plaintiff,
WILLIAM OSCAR HARRIS, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FOLEY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the parties failure to show
cause why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of an
actual dispute and lack of prosecution.
December 2, 2015, Plaintiff Viana B. Bailey filed her
Complaint (ECF No. 1) setting forth her demand for
arbitration pursuant to arbitration agreements between
Plaintiff and Defendants William Oscar Harris, Robert David
Neal, and Ralph Taylor. On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed
Notices of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment (ECF No. 7, 8, 9)
and her Motion for Final Judgment based on the offers of
judgment (ECF No. 10). On October 5, 2016, a Motion for
Modification of Deemed Final Judgment (ECF No. 11) was filed
purportedly on behalf of Defendant Ralph Taylor.
the exception of Defendant Ralph Taylor, none of the
Defendants have appeared in this matter. Mr. Kenneth Taylor
is not a party to this action, but signed the Motion for
Modification purportedly on behalf of Defendant Ralph Taylor.
Mr. Kenneth Taylor signed the offer of judgment purportedly
on behalf of Defendants William Oscar Harris, Robert David
Neal, and Ralph Taylor. See ECF No. 10-2. Mr.
Kenneth Taylor appeared for a status conference in this
action on November 22, 2016 and represented that he was the
power of attorney for the Defendants. See ECF No.
January 13, 2017, the Court ordered the parties to show cause
in writing by February 10, 2017 why this matter should not be
dismissed for lack of an actual dispute and lack of
prosecution. The Court also instructed the parties to retain
counsel who shall file an appearance according to the Local
Rules of Practice or to file a notice with the Court that he
or she will be appearing in this matter pro se. On January
31, 2017, Mr. Kenneth Taylor filed a notice (ECF No. 18)
purportedly on behalf of the Defendants informing the Court
that he will file a response to the Court's order to show
cause on June 12, 2017. Mr. Kenneth Taylor represents that he
is appearing on behalf of the Defendants as their power of
attorney. See ECF No. 18. On February 9, 2017,
Plaintiff filed her response. ECF No. 20. She stated that
there is no longer a controversy before the Court because of
her acceptance of offers of judgment and requests that final
judgment be entered.
Failure to Retain Counsel
an individual is entitled to represent himself or herself,
non-attorneys are not permitted to represent, or appear in
court on behalf of, any other person. Handley v. Bank of
Am., N.A., 2010 WL 4607014, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 2010)
(citing Salman v. Newell, 110 Nev. 1333, 885 P.2d
607, 608 (Nev.1994)). See also Jackson v. United Artists
Theatre Circuit, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 586, 596 (D. Nev.
2011). An individual does not have the right to be
represented by an agent other than counsel in a court of law.
Handley, 2010 WL 4607014, at *1. NRS § 7.285
prohibits the unauthorized practice of law. Id.
Court instructed the parties to retain counsel or to file a
notice with the Court that he or she will be appearing in
this matter pro se by February 10, 2017. To date, Defendants
have failed to do so. Mr. Kenneth Taylor is not an attorney
and is not permitted to represent the Defendants in this
action. Pursuant to NRS § 7.285, the Defendants cannot
delegate representation to Mr. Kenneth Taylor. It does not
appear that Defendants have filed anything in this matter on
their own behalf. Defendants, therefore, failed to comply
with this Court's order.
Lack of Case or Controversy
III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the
federal courts to cases or controversies. See U.S.
Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “The doctrine of
mootness, which is embedded in Article III's case or
controversy requirement, requires that an actual, ongoing
controversy exist at all stages of federal court
proceedings.” Banks v. Robinson, 2011 WL
5877542, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 22, 2011) (quoting Pitts v.
Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir.
2011)). A case becomes moot “when the issues presented
are no longer ‘live' or the parties lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome” of the litigation.
Pitts, 653 F.3d at 1086. Federal courts lack the
constitutional authority to decide moot cases. Id.
at 1087. If events subsequent to the filing of the case
resolve the parties' dispute, the court must dismiss the
case as moot. Id.
Court instructed the parties to show cause in writing why
this matter should not be dismissed for lack of an actual
dispute and lack of prosecution. The parties have failed to
present a discernible issue in dispute or that the parties
have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the
litigation. Plaintiff's claims are unclear and she even
represents that there is no longer a controversy before the
Court. Further, the Court reiterates that the documents filed
by both parties appear to be created from the same source and
are similarly formatted. The Defendants have not filed any
documents on their own behalf. As such, there does not appear
to be an actual dispute between real parties. Accordingly, IT
IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No.
1) be dismissed.
FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of the Court be instructed
to close this case and enter ...