Schaefer v. Hundley, 2:15-cv-02017

Background:

Plaintiff J. Michael Schaefer filed suit claiming to be the assignee of Schaefer‑Nevada, Inc., and asserted claims that belonged to that corporation.
At filing the corporation was active; plaintiff originally characterized himself as the "unequivocal and total assignee" and later amended to allege he was assignee of a dissolved corporation, attaching an unauthenticated assignment dated the same day as the original complaint.
The Court repeatedly warned that corporate interests in federal court must be litigated by licensed counsel and gave Schaefer an opportunity to retain counsel, setting a deadline at a hearing on November 13, 2019.
Schaefer did not retain counsel and instead moved for reconsideration of the Court’s order requiring counsel/for dismissal avoidance.
The Court found the asserted assignment and post‑dissolution allegations did not permit Schaefer, a pro se litigant who was not a trustee, to proceed on corporate claims and that the assignment could not be used to evade the counsel requirement.
The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, dismissed the case for lack of counsel to represent corporate interests, and denied all pending motions as moot.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to grant reconsideration of the order requiring counsel/dismissing case	Schaefer sought reconsideration to avoid dismissal and to proceed pro se on assigned corporate claims	Hundley relied on earlier rulings and the counsel requirement to oppose reconsideration	Denied — no new evidence or intervening law to justify reconsideration
Whether a pro se officer may litigate corporate claims after claiming assignment	Schaefer argued he was assignee (including after alleged dissolution) and thus could proceed personally	Hundley argued corporate claims must be litigated by counsel and assignment cannot evade that requirement	Held that pro se Schaefer may not proceed; corporations (and their claims) require licensed counsel in federal court
Whether post‑dissolution status allows Schaefer to litigate without counsel	Schaefer claimed the corporation was dissolved and he held assigned interests allowing him to proceed	Hundley argued Nevada dissolution statute and trust duties do not permit non‑attorney trustees/pro se litigants to represent corporate interests in federal court	Court held dissolution does not permit pro se representation; Schaefer is not a trustee and C.E. Pope bars non‑attorney trustees from representing corporate interests in federal court
Whether an alleged assignment can circumvent Nevada/court counsel requirements	Schaefer relied on the assignment to justify his standing to litigate pro se	Hundley argued such assignments to officers to avoid counsel are ineffective under Nevada law and federal practice	Court applied Nevada authority (Sunde) and refused to allow the assignment to circumvent counsel requirement; dismissal warranted

Key Cases Cited

Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) (reconsideration committed to district court discretion)
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2009) (grounds for reconsideration limited to new evidence, clear error, or intervening law)
United States v. High Country Broad. Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir. 1993) (a corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel)
C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1987) (non‑attorney trustees cannot represent corporate interests in federal court)
Sunde v. Contel of California, 915 P.2d 298 (Nev. 1996) (Nevada disallows assignments to officers intended to avoid counsel‑representation requirements)
Gottlieb v. Alphabet, Inc., [citation="787 F. App'x 477"] (9th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal where pro se litigant attempted to assign corporate interests to himself to avoid counsel requirement)
Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) (discussing Erie aims and avoiding inequitable administration of laws)