Andrade v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. et al

Filing 56

ORDER GRANTING Motion to Withdraw as Attorney as counsel for Pedro Mota 42 filed by Lynnette Marie Ariathurai. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 12/23/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 LYNNETTE ARIATHURAI (State Bar 170858) The Law Office of Lynnette Ariathurai A Professional Corporation 39300 Civic Center Drive, Suite 110 Fremont, California 94538 Telephone: 510-794-9290 Attorney for Defendant, PEDRO MOTA 5 The motion to withdraw as counsel for Mota is GRANTED. Dated: December 23, 2015 DISTR S UNIT ED 7 GRAN 9 TED NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NO Civil Case No.: 15-CV-03175-NC ER H 12 13 . Cousins Plaintiff, Vs. 14 17 ARBY’S RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., ALTAMIRA CORPORATION, PETRO MOTA, and DOES 1 to 20 inclusive, Defendants. 18 19 N F DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY D IS T IC O LYNNETTE ARIATHURAI IN SUPPORT T R OF MOTION T0 WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY __________________________________/ I, Lynnette Ariathurai, declare as follows: 15 16 Date: December 2, 2015 Time: 1:00 th p.m. Dept.: 7, 4 Floor Magistrate Judge: Nathanael Cousins 20 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California and 21 22 23 24 25 federal courts. I am the attorney of record for Defendant Pedro Mota, sued erroneously as Petro Mota herein. 2. On December 11, 2015, I met with Pedro Mota, and advised him of the Court’s decision at the December 2, 2015 motion hearing referenced above. I explained the procedure for 26 an individual defendant representing themselves in pro per, and provided to him another 27 28 LI MIRIAM ANDRADE, RT 11 thanael M Judge Na A 10 copy of the Court’s Tentative ruling with assistance available for in pro per parties. I also Andrade v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc., et al Case No. 15-CV-03175-NC – Declaration of Counsel for Motion withdrawal 1 R NIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO 8 ICT C RT U O 6 ES AT T C 1 assisted Pedro Mota in establishing a Pacer Account with the federal court to obtain court 2 filed notices in this matter, and provided him a copy of the procedures booklet for in pro 3 per parties from the federal court website. In addition, I explained and drafted the request 4 for Pedro Mota to begin electronic filing with the federal court as well as the Proposed 5 Order. Pedro Mota, in my presence, signed and e-mailed to the Court same day as stated 6 7 in the procedures for in pro defendants. The procedures indicated that such request 8 would take up to 3 days before it may be approved. I have not received the signed Order 9 from the Court that is due by end of today latest. 10 3. Pedro Mota indicated to me that he intended to represent himself in pro per. However, he 11 also stated that he may change that decision in the future, and have an attorney represent 12 13 him. I explained to him that the attorney can assist him in making such change in the 14 future and he can do so at any time. 15 4. Per the motion hearing on December 2, 2015, I am requesting that the Court grant my 16 motion to be relieved as counsel for Pedro Mota effective today, as I have complied with 17 18 the Court’s order that on or before December 16, 2015 to assist Pedro Mota in 19 understanding the federal court procedures for notices and filings, and in establishing an 20 account with the federal court to enable Pedro Mota to receive Court notices and filings. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury that the above statements are true and correct of my 22 own knowledge, except for those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those, I 23 24 25 26 27 believe them to be true. Dated: December 16, 2015 THE LAW OFFICE OF LYNNETTE ARIATHURAI A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ___/s/ Lynnette Ariathurai_____ Lynnette Ariathurai, Attorney for Defendant, PEDRO MOTA 28 Andrade v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc., et al Case No. 15-CV-03175-NC – Declaration of Counsel for Motion withdrawal 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?