Hart v. Dillon ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ALESA LYN HART, Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-APG-NJK 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation, Overruling Objections, 5 v. Denying Motion for Attorney’s Fees, and Dismissing the Case 6 MARY DILLON and ULTA BEAUTY, [ECF Nos. 6, 9] 7 Defendants 8 This is one of many cases filed by Hank Falstad purportedly acting as the attorney for 9 each individual plaintiff. In this case, Falstad contends he has been engaged by plaintiff Alesa 10 Lyn Hart to make the defendants comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with 11 respect to their buildings and sites. The complaint is signed by Falstad as “Architect for 12 Plaintiff.” ECF No. 1-1 at 21. It is not signed by Hart or an attorney representing Hart. 13 On May 7, 2021, Magistrate Judge Koppe ordered Hart to file an amended complaint 14 because (1) Falstad is not an attorney, so he cannot represent Hart in this court; (2) the complaint 15 was not signed by Hart or her attorney as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a); and 16 (3) neither Hart nor Falstad paid the filing fee or applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 17 ECF No. 3 at 29-30. Judge Koppe therefore ordered Hart to file an amended complaint signed 18 by her or her attorney and to pay the filing fee or file an application for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis by June 7, 2021. Id. at 30. 20 Hart did not file an amended complaint, pay the filing fee, or file an in forma pauperis 21 application, so Judge Koppe recommended that I dismiss this case without prejudice for failure 22 to prosecute. ECF No. 6 at 28-29. Hart did not object, but Falstad did. Falstad’s response 23 largely consists of explaining who he is and what he hopes to achieve on behalf of making 1 building owners comply with the ADA. ECF No. 7. He also filed a supplemental response in 2 which he contends there should be a new special court to address whether a particular property is 3 ADA complaint. ECF No. 8. He contends no filing fee is required because the plaintiff is 4 reporting a case to the executive branch of government. Id. at 2. He does not address the other 5 points raised in Judge Koppe’s order. He also filed a motion for attorney’s fees, labeled as 6 “invoice,” in which he contends that he is entitled to attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,000,000 7 as a prevailing party. ECF No. 9 at 1. 8 I review de novo Judge Koppe’s recommendation to dismiss this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Falstad cannot represent Hart because he 10 is not an attorney. See Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (“It is well 11 established that the privilege to represent oneself pro se provided by [28 U.S.C.] § 1654 is 12 personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities.”). Additionally, Hart did 13 not comply with Judge Koppe’s order to file an amended complaint signed by her or her counsel 14 as Rule 11(a) requires, nor did Hart pay the filing fee or seek in forma pauperis status. Judge 15 Koppe properly weighed the factors supporting dismissal based on Hart’s failure to comply with 16 the order and I adopt her analysis. See ECF No. 6 at 28-29. 17 Falstad’s argument that no filing fee is necessary because this is a complaint to the 18 executive branch is meritless. This is a lawsuit filed in federal court. And the defendants are a 19 private individual and a commercial enterprise. Neither of them is a member of the executive 20 branch. I therefore overrule Falstad’s objections and adopt Judge Koppe’s recommendation to 21 dismiss this case without prejudice. 22 I deny Falstad’s request for attorney’s fees. He is not an attorney nor has he or Hart 23 prevailed in this action. ] I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation 2|| (ECF No. 6) is accepted, interested party Hank Falstad’s motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 9) denied, and this case is dismissed without prejudice. 4 I FURTHER ORDER the clerk of court to close this case. 5 DATED this 19th day of August, 2021. 6 (IER. ANDREW P.GORDON g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23