O R D E R bought refused pay says

defective. nephew claiming seller family. ‐ the suit to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. U.S.C. § The district court later resolved the suit favor the seller. Christopher, who is now subject to a has appealed. Wilmington Tr., Nat’l Nos. al. Dec. 2019); see Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. Mack Michael appeals, and his father Leo purports to join the appeal. Because Michael’s arguments are and Leo lacks standing to appeal, affirm.

This suit arises out Christopher Stoller’s contract to buy a model home from CMH Manufacturing, Inc., payment due delivery. After Christopher received the home, and CMH and others state court, alleging that CMH contract by providing a faulty the others to family’s business. Once suit to federal Leo moved to represent (his son) as his guardian. C IV 25(b). The district court allowed Leo to participate, as Michael’s representative only through counsel. As relevant court then dismissed Michael’s claims party to contract or beneficiary. It denied Christopher’s motion under Rule 25(c) Federal Rules Civil Procedure to “transfer” breach claim to Leo. It reasoned that Leo, who is subject to bar see Matter Leo (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2007), obtained leave district’s Executive Committee litigate. court ruled that Christopher furnished no evidence warranting trial breach so it granted summary judgment—which both Leo now attempt challenge.

Leo standing appeal. “[O]nly parties lawsuit, those properly become parties, appeal adverse judgment.” Marino Ortiz U.S. (1988). district court permitted participate state authorized guardian; never became party own right. Further, district court denied request “transfer” claim (based Leo’s district bar), never sought leave become party purposes challenging decision appeal. Having done so, now appeal. id. other reasons, recently denied Leo’s appellees attorney. arguments are First, ‐ requirement diversity jurisdiction, see U.S.C. § satisfied. observes stipulated do “seek” $74,000. commit refuse more than $75,000, so stipulation 20 1227 3 did prevent removal. See v. Pushpin Holdings, LLC 748 F.3d 769, 772 (7th Cir. 2014). Besides, he seeks enjoin business in he does deny if he succeeded injunction would entail $75,000 in losses for CMH, thus satisfying requirement. Oshana v. Coca Cola Co ., 472 F.3d 506, 512 (7th Cir. 2006). Second, an beneficiary of with CMH, thus an equitable interest it. cannot point any part which does mention him, rebutting “strong presumption” contracts apply solely contracting parties. Bank America Nat. Bassman FBT, LLC N.E.2d (Ill. 2012).

We end matter sanctions costs. We warned Michael, August frivolous filings. Walworth Cnty ., F. App’x 632–33 (7th Cir. Aug. 2021). Although filings here preceded warning, withdraw amend filings after warning. We therefore order show cause days why we should reimpose circuit filing which we imposed over ten years ago lifted assumption would obey rules. In Re Oct. 2012). We also order (through guardian’s counsel) show cause within days why we should sanction him (through guardian, Leo) fine for frivolous nonpayment which could result bar.

Next, we turn attorney, Philip Kiss. Kiss filed appearance for “Leo Stoller, legal guardian, Stoller, Appellant.” Yet Kiss filed signed filed behalf (or behalf “Leo Stoller, legal guardian, Michael”), behalf “Appellant Stoller” himself. We sanction unprofessional conduct attorneys court. Carr Tillery therefore order Kiss show cause within days why should sanction him behalf litigant whom appearance. Kiss must address whether wrote approved motion. invite submit verified bill costs within days, which Stollers object within days.

AFFIRMED

[*] have agreed decide case without oral argument 34(a)(2)(A).