ZMH v. Wells Fargo Bank
- Charles Breyer
- 3:19-cv-03739
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In ZMH v. Wells Fargo Bank, Judge Breyer ordered a minor plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed because a nonlawyer next friend filed it.
ZMH, a minor plaintiff, and Regional Advocacy Group, which filed the case as ZMH’s next friend; Wells Fargo Bank was the named defendant.
What happened
In ZMH v. Wells Fargo Bank, a minor plaintiff filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The case was filed by Regional Advocacy Group as the plaintiff’s “next friend.”
The court explained that a next friend who is not a lawyer and is not represented by one cannot sue for a minor. The record did not show that Regional Advocacy Group was a law firm or had an attorney, and the court said the minor’s claims could proceed only with qualified counsel.
The court did not dismiss the case at this stage. It ordered a written response explaining why the case should not be dismissed, due September 30, 2019. Judge Charles Breyer issued the order.
The detailed version
- ZMH v. Wells Fargo Bank · No. 3:19-cv-03739
- Charles Breyer
- Sept. 16, 2019
Background
ZMH, identified in the order as a minor plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint against Wells Fargo Bank and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. Regional Advocacy Group filed the case as ZMH’s “next friend,” a person or entity seeking to act for someone who cannot conduct litigation personally.
Issue
The court addressed whether the case could proceed when the minor’s next friend was not shown to be a lawyer or represented by a lawyer. The order cited Ninth Circuit authority stating that a nonlawyer next friend cannot bring a lawsuit for a minor, and that a parent or guardian also cannot do so without retaining a lawyer.
Order
The court found that nothing in the record indicated Regional Advocacy Group was a law firm or was represented by an attorney. Because ZMH is a minor, the court stated that the claims could proceed only if ZMH were represented by qualified counsel. The court ordered ZMH to respond in writing by September 30, 2019, explaining why the case should not be dismissed. The order itself did not dismiss the case.
Effect
The order placed the case’s continuation in question and required a response addressing the representation problem. The opinion does not state what happened after the response deadline.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.