The Negrete Tribe Trust v. David Killinger

Negrete Tribe Trust · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · January 14, 2026 · No. 1:25-cv-01160-JLT-SKO

Summary

The court discharges its order to show cause and recommends dismissing the action without prejudice. It holds that a trust must appear in federal court through licensed counsel and that a non-attorney pro se litigant may not represent the trust. The court concludes that the defect cannot be cured by amendment and gives the parties 21 days to file objections.

Holdings

  1. A trust must appear in federal court through a licensed attorney, and a non-attorney proceeding pro se may not represent the trust or pursue claims on its behalf.
  2. The court found no legal authority exempting a purported private ecclesiastical trust from the rule requiring representation by licensed counsel.
  3. Leave to amend was not appropriate because Negrete, as a non-lawyer, could not cure the defect by bringing claims on behalf of the trust.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a trust may appear in federal court through a non-attorney trustee, beneficiary, or representative proceeding pro se.
  2. Whether a purported private ecclesiastical trust is exempt from the rule requiring representation by licensed counsel.
  3. Whether the complaint's representation defect could be cured by amendment or required dismissal without prejudice.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (12)

  • C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
  • Alpha Land Co. v. Little, 238 F.R.D. 497, 502 (E.D. Cal. 2006)(followed)
  • Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664, 667 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Coldstream Ministries v. Regions Bank, N.A., No. 2:25-CV-993-KCD-DNF, 2025 WL 3513906, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2025)(followed)
  • Maisano v. Welcher, 940 F.2d 499, 501 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
  • United States v. Stepard, 876 F. Supp. 214, 215 (D. Ariz. 1994)(followed)
  • In re Kilpatrick, No. 25-30619, 2025 WL 3296216, at *22 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Nov. 24, 2025)(not_reached)
  • In re Morgan-Grant, No. 24-18665-PDR, 2025 WL 1571024, at *1-3 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. June 3, 2025)(not_reached)
  • Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
  • Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 12.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…