You're viewing Docket Item 15 from the case Clark et al v. Hennepin County Court et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




CASE 0:12-cv-03089-RWP Document 15 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

12-cv-3089

ORDER

Plaintiffs,

v.

*
*
Jill Clark, for herself and as Class
Representative, Jill Clark, LLC, Jill
*
Clark, P.A., Peggy Katch, Michelle Gross, *
David Bicking, Trisha Farkarlun, Nicole
*
*
Yzaguirre, Eric Yzaguirre, Paul Stepnes,
*
and Chester House, LLC,
*
*
*
*
*
Hennepin County Court, n/k/a Fourth
*
Judicial District, Minnesota, the Minnesota *
Court of Appeals, the Minnesota Supreme *
Court, the Minnesota Lawyers Board, the
*
Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional *
*
Responsibility, Craig Klausing, in his
individual and official capacity as OLPR
*
*
Director, Jane Roe #1, Judith Rush (or her
successor), in her capacity as Chair of the
*
LB or her successor, Mark B. Unger, in his *
capacity as Vice Chair of the LB, Robert A. *
Blaeser in his individual capacity, and his
*
official capacity, the Responsible Person for *
the state court(s), Sue Dosal in her official
*
capacity as Court Administrator, Lucy
*
Wieland, in her individual capacity and as *
*
an individual, Michael J. Davis, in his
individual capacity, Paul Scoggin, in his
*
*
individual capacity, John Roes 1–50, John
*
Roes 51–100,
*
*
*

Defendants.

On December 7, 2012, attorney Jill Clark (“Clark”) filed the above-captioned putative

class action on behalf of herself and various other individuals and entities. On January 16, 2013,

however, the Minnesota Supreme Court temporarily suspended Clark’s license to practice law.

See Case No. 0-13-mc-00005, Clerk’s No. 1 at 1. On January 17, 2013, pursuant to Local Rule

CASE 0:12-cv-03089-RWP Document 15 Filed 02/07/13 Page 2 of 3

83.6(b), this Court followed suit, finding Clark “ineligible to practice law before this court

during the same period that she is prohibited from practicing law by the Minnesota Supreme

Court.” Id. at 2.

In light of her suspension, Clark’s role in this action is now limited to that of pro se

litigant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and

conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as . . . the rules of such courts . . . permit[.]”);

Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993)

(finding that artificial business entities may only be represented in court by licensed counsel);

Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159 (1988) (“Regardless of his persuasive powers, an

advocate who is not a member of the bar may not represent clients (other than himself) in

court.”); Lewis v. Lenc-Smith Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d 829, 830 (7th Cir. 1986) (person without a

license to practice law may not represent another individual in federal court); see also Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11(a) (providing that every filed document must be signed by “at least one attorney of

record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented”).

Correspondingly, all other named Plaintiffs must obtain alternate representation, or proceed in

this matter pro se.

For these reasons, Jill Clark’s status in the above-captioned case is hereby converted to

that of pro se litigant. The other individually named Plaintiffs (Peggy Katch, Michelle Gross,

David Bicking, Trisha Farkarlun, Nicole Yzaguirre, Eric Yzaguirre, and Paul Stepnes) must, no

later than March 8, 2013, have new counsel enter an appearance on their behalf or file a

statement with the Court expressing an intent to proceed pro se. Pursuant to Rowland, the

professional entities named in the caption (Jill Clark, LLC, Jill Clark, P.A, and Chester House,

-2-

CASE 0:12-cv-03089-RWP Document 15 Filed 02/07/13 Page 3 of 3

LLC) must, no later than March 8, 2013, have new counsel enter an appearance on their behalf.

In the event either an individual or a professional-entity Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order

by the designated date, their claims will be promptly dismissed without prejudice.

Pursuant to the Minnesota Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, Clark should

already have notified her clients that her license to practice law has been suspended. See

MRLPR, Rule 26(b). Clark is hereby additionally ORDERED to provide a copy of this Order to

all named Plaintiffs in this action, urging them to promptly comply with its terms by obtaining

substitute counsel or by entering a pro se appearance.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this __7th__day of February, 2013.

1

The Court will liberally grant requests for extensions of time to answer or make
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 motions for any Defendant that has been or is served with a
copy of the Summons and Complaint prior to clarification of the various Plaintiffs’ continued
position in this litigation.

-3-