UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-6142-DMG (PJWx) Date February 8, 2021

Title Rita Zass v. Bank of America Page 1 of 2

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS — ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY STIPULATION

AND REQUEST TO SUBSTITUTE PRO SE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR

OF ESTATE FOR COUNSEL SHOULD NOT BE DENIED [22]

On February 4, 2021, counsel for Sophie Volovnik, special administrator of the Estate of Rita Zass, filed a stipulation and request to permit Volovnik to proceed pro se and allow present counsel to withdraw. [Doc. # 22.]

As a general rule, an individual has a right to represent him or herself in federal courts, in order to promote that individual’s equal access to the courts. 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 . . . .”) (emphasis added); see also C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.2.1. In an action brought by a pro se litigant, the real party in interest must be the person who “by substantive law has the right to be enforced.” C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (trustee attempting to represent a trust pro se was not a “party” conducting his “own case personally” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1654, as he was not the beneficial owner of the claims being asserted); McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966) (the privilege to represent oneself pro se provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities); see also Estate of Sharp ex rel. Sharp v. Callahan, No. 3:12- CV-0605-TC, 2012 WL 6480845, at *1 (D. Or. Nov. 21, 2012), report and recommendation adopted in 2012 WL 6217530 (D. Or. Dec. 11, 2012) (granting defendant’s motion to dismiss upon finding that administrator of estate could not proceed pro se in light of 28 U.S.C. § 1654 and Ninth Circuit precedent) (citing inter alia C.E. Pope and McShane).

Here, Plaintiff Rita Zass sued Defendant Bank of America claiming that the bank improperly froze her checking account and that she had intended to use the frozen funds to finance a real estate transaction. As a result, she filed the present action and asserted seven breach of contract and other claims. [See Doc. # 1-1.] After Zass’s death, the Los Angeles Superior Court – Probate Division permitted Volovnik, Zass’s mother, to proceed as special

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-6142-DMG (PJWx) Date February 8, 2021

Title Rita Zass v. Bank of America Page 2 of 2

administrator of Zass’s estate. [See Doc. # 18.] But as noted above, Zass’s claims in the instant action appear wholly personal to her and it does not appear, based on the above controlling precedent, that Volovnik may appear pro se to pursue Zass’s claims.

Accordingly, counsel is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than February 18, 2021 why the stipulation and request to substitute Volovnik to proceed pro se and permit present counsel to withdraw should not be denied. Failure to timely or satisfactorily respond shall result in denial of the stipulation and request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.