Licht v. America West Airlines
9th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026(PS) Woo v. United Express Group, Inc.
- 2026Edler D. Mont.
- 2026Talon Diversified Holdings Inc. v. White 9th Cir.
- 2026Tomahawk Manufacturing, Inc., et al. v. Spherical Industries, Inc., et al. D. Nev.
- 2026Neutralsovereignties Corp., et al. v. Zions Bancorporation, et al. S.D. Cal.
- 2025Michael's Gourmet Pantry, Inc. v. Martin D. Nev.
- 2025Nexa Mortgage LLC v. Smart Mortgage Centers Incorporated D. Ariz.
- 2025In re: Miomni Sports, Ltd. 9th Cir. BAP
- 2025The City of Elko v. Ville 837 LLC D. Nev.
- 2025Aspalathos Investments, LLC v. John Does 1–10, including John Doe, the current owner, operator, or controller of Ethereum wallet address 0xf70da97812CB96acDF810712Aa562db8dfA3dbEF S.D. Cal.
Cites 1 statute
- Appearance personally or by counsel
Cites 4 cases
- Eagle Associates v. Bank of Montreal
- Church of New Testament v. United States
- C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States
- United States v. Reeves
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
In re AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, Debtor. Seymour LICHT, Appellant, v. AMERICA WEST AIRLINES; Equity Security Holders Committee, Appellees.
Judges
- Before: BROWNING, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Attorneys
- Dr. Seymour Licht, pro se.
- Pamela M. Jimenez, Lord, Bissell, & Brook, Chicago, IL, for appellees.
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.
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 of the 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).
In United 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 in Rowland v. California Men’s Colony recently criticized our holding in Reeves and observed that “save in a few aberrant cases [including Reeves], the lower courts have uniformly held that 28 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 that Reeves stood for the proposition that non-attorney members of a partnership could appear on behalf of the partnership, the Supreme Court in California Men’s Colony has overruled that holding. See — U.S. at -, 113 S.Ct. at 721.
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.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.