Wilshire v. L&M Development Partners
- Ona Wang
- 1:20-cv-07998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wilshire v. Larkspur LLC, Chief Judge McMahon ordered the pro se plaintiff to sign the complaint within 30 days or face dismissal.
Coanne Wilshire, who was required to sign and return the declaration within 30 days to avoid the dismissal the court said would follow noncompliance; the defendants were affected because no summons issued at that time.
What happened
In Coanne Wilshire v. Larkspur LLC, Larkspur Managers LLC, L&M Development Partners, and Lemle & Wolff Co., the pro se plaintiff submitted an unsigned complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires an unrepresented party to sign court filings personally.
The court directed the plaintiff to complete, sign, and return an attached declaration within 30 days. The clerk was ordered to mail the order and record service, and no summons would issue at that time. The court stated that the case would proceed through the clerk’s office if the plaintiff complied, but that it would dismiss the action if the plaintiff did not comply.
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Wilshire v. L&M Development Partners · No. 1:20-cv-07998
- Ona Wang
- Oct. 15, 2020
Background
Coanne Wilshire brought the action without a lawyer. The opinion states that the complaint was submitted without a signature. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), along with Local Civil Rule 11.1(a), requires a court filing to be signed by an attorney or, when a party is unrepresented, by that party personally.
Order
The court directed Wilshire to complete, sign, and submit the attached declaration form within 30 days of the order. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Wilshire and note service on the docket. No summons was to issue at that time.
If Wilshire complied, the case would be processed under the clerk’s office procedures. If Wilshire failed to comply within the allowed time, the court stated that it would dismiss the action. The order did not address the merits of the claims against the defendants.
Appeal-related ruling
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition
The court issued an order requiring a signed filing; it did not dismiss the action in this order. The matter is a procedural order because it addressed a filing requirement rather than the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.