Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

In Re America West Airlines, Debtor. Seymour Licht v. America West Airlines Equity Security Holders Committee

In Re Am. W. Airlines, Debtor. Seymour Licht v. Am. W. Airlines Equity Sec. Holders Comm., 40 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 1994)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1994-11-25
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that a non-attorney may not appear on behalf of a partnership
  • stating that “[c]orporations and other unincorporated 22 associations must appear in court through an attorney.”
  • stating that 24 “[c]orporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”
  • stating that 22 “[c]orporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”
  • stating that “[c]orporations and other unincorporated associations must 23 appear in court through an attorney.”
  • stating that “[c]orporations and other 27 unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”
  • stating that 23 “[c]orporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”
  • stating that “[c]orporations and other 26 unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed In Re America West Airlines, Debtor. Seymour Licht v. America West Airlines Equity Security Holders Committee. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
189 opinions
IN RE AMERICA WEST AIRLINES,40 F.3d 1058(9th Cir. 1994)
IN RE AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, DEBTOR.
SEYMOUR LICHT, APPELLANT, v. AMERICA WEST AIRLINES; EQUITY SECURITY HOLDERS
COMMITTEE, APPELLEES.
No. 94-15631.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 17, 1994fn*.
Decided November 25, 1994.
Page 1059
Dr. Seymour Licht, pro se.

Pamela M. Jimenez, Lord, Bissell, Brook, Chicago, IL, for appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.
Before: BROWNING, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Seymour Licht appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") affirmance of the bankruptcy court's order barring Licht, a non-attorney, from representing See More Light Investments, a business association in which Licht was the senior partner.

[2] Corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v.United States,818 F.2d 696,697-98(9th Cir. 1987);Church ofthe New Testament v. United States,783 F.2d 771,773-74(9th Cir. 1986);see also Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal,926 F.2d 1305,1309-10(2d Cir. 1991) (partnership not allowed to be represented by non-attorney partner).

[3] InUnited States v. Reeves,however, we allowed a non-attorney partner to represent his interest in a partnership pursuant to Alaskan partnership statute.431 F.2d 1187,1188(9th Cir. 1970). The Supreme Court inRowland v. California Men'sColonyrecently criticized our holding inReevesand observed that "save in a few aberrant cases [includingReeves], the lower courts have uniformly held that28 U.S.C. § 1654, providing that `parties may plead and conduct their own case personally or by counsel,' does not allow corporations,partnerships,or associations to appear in federal court otherwise than through a licensed attorney." ___ U.S. ___, ___,113 S.Ct. 716,721,121 L.Ed.2d 656(1993) (footnote omitted and emphasis added). Thus, to the extent thatReevesstood for the proposition that nonattorney members of a partnership could appear on behalf of the partnership, the Supreme Court inCalifornia Men's Colonyhas overruled that holding.See___ U.S. at ___,113 S.Ct. at 721.

[4] The remaining issue regarding Licht's right to represent himself pro se as an individual creditor of the debtor, America West Airlines, Inc. is addressed in a separate memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this opinion. In the disposition, we vacate part of the order and remand to the bankruptcy court.

[5]AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
  1. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P.34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Licht's request for oral argument is denied. ↩