affirming dismissal of case because corporate plaintiff was not represented by counselSummary of this case from Denso Corp. v. Domain Name
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 2, 2010.
Christy McGowan, Chandler, AZ, pro se.
Robert Sarett, Redding, CA, pro se.
The Honorable John W. Sedwick, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Christy McGowan appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice her action alleging claims as the purported trustee for Wasasa Enterprises, an Arizona joint stock company. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because McGowan, who is not a licensed attorney, may not pursue the action on behalf of Wasasa Enterprises. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Lickt v. Am. W. Airlines (In re Am. W. Airlines), 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) ("Corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney."); United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (in an action against a corporation that had not retained counsel, the corporation's president and sole shareholder could not intervene pro se be-cause it would circumvent the requirement that the corporation be represented by counsel).
McGowan's subrogation argument is un-persuasive.