Liu v. Bank of America, N.A.
- Jeffrey White
- 4:23-cv-05211
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Liu v. Bank of America, Judge White continued the case-management conference and required a report about counsel or LLC ratification.
Shin-Lin Liu, Bank of America, N.A., and the unnamed limited liability company identified by the court as the possible real party in interest.
What happened
In Liu v. Bank of America, N.A., the court said the allegations indicated that an unnamed limited liability company was the real party in interest. The court deferred ruling on Bank of America’s motion to strike the complaint.
Shin-Lin Liu reported that the Federal Pro Bono Project found him ineligible for its services and that he had been unable to find a lawyer. The court explained that the LLC could authorize the case to continue and agree to be bound by its result.
Judge Jeffrey White continued the case-management conference to August 30, 2024, and ordered Liu to file a status report by July 31, 2024, stating whether he had found counsel or obtained proper ratification from the LLC.
The detailed version
- Liu v. Bank of America, N.A. · No. 4:23-cv-05211
- Jeffrey White
- May 28, 2024
Background
Shin-Lin Liu sued Bank of America, N.A. Bank of America moved to strike the complaint, arguing that a limited liability company was the real party in interest—the entity legally entitled to pursue the claims. Based on the allegations, the court agreed that the LLC appeared to be the real party in interest, but it deferred ruling on the motion.
Rule 17 issue
The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(3), which allows a reasonable time for the real party in interest to ratify, join, or be substituted into an action after an objection. The court explained that proper ratification requires the LLC to authorize continuation of the action and agree to be bound by the lawsuit’s result.
Representation and order
Liu told the court that the Federal Pro Bono Project had determined he was not eligible for its services and that he had been unable to locate counsel. The court continued the case-management conference to August 30, 2024. It ordered Liu to file a status report by July 31, 2024, addressing whether he had located counsel or obtained proper ratification from the LLC. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the motion to strike.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.