Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00145/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00145-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Oretech, Inc. f/k/a the Tantivity Group, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Pacific Rocky Mountain, Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04-0145-PHX-MHM

ORDER

At a hearing on December 12, 2005, the Court denied the stipulation to withdraw as

counsel for Plaintiff Oretech, Inc. (Doc. 46 & 48). The Court denied the stipulation to

withdraw because a substitution of counsel had not been filed. Plaintiff's counsel indicated

at that hearing that Plaintiff Oretech, Inc., was in the process of seeking new counsel. No

substitution of counsel has been filed since the date of the hearing. Plaintiff's counsel has

filed a renewed motion to withdraw, stating that counsel should not be required to continue

to represent Plaintiff Oretech, Inc. while Plaintiff seeks new counsel. (Doc. 49). Plaintiff's

counsel has cited Mohr, Hackett, etc v. Superior Court of the State of Arizona, etc., 745

P.2d 208 (Ariz.App. 1987), which held that the rule against corporate self-representation

does not permit a blanket prohibition against the withdrawal of counsel solely on the basis

of the client's status as a corporation. The Arizona Court of Appeals noted that some courts

Case 2:04-cv-00145-MHM Document 50 Filed 06/12/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

either direct the corporation to obtain counsel during a specific period of time or stay the

action while the corporate party obtains new counsel. 

In this case, the first stipulation to withdraw was signed by corporate representative

Mr. H. Stephen Shehane and provided Mr. Shehane's address and telephone number. The

stipulation therefore complied with LRCiv 83.3(b)(1). Another corporate representative, Mr.

Robert Rath, appeared by telephone at the December 12th hearing. The renewed motion to

withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff (Doc. 49) is granted. 

"It is a longstanding rule that '[c]orporations and other unincorporated associations

must appear in court through an attorney.'" D-Beam Limited Partnership v. Roller Derby

Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004)(quoted citation omitted). Plaintiff Oretech,

Inc., shall have 14 days to obtain counsel in this action. The Law Firm of Ellis & Venable,

P.C., shall provide a copy of this Order to the appropriate representative of the corporate

Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this Order to Mr. H. Stephen Shehane,

c/o Oretech, Inc., P.O. Box 1735, Columbus, Georgia 31902-1735. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff (Doc. 49) is

granted. The Law Firm of Ellis & Venable, P.C., shall be permitted to withdraw as counsel

for Plaintiff. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Oretech, Inc., shall have 14 days from

the filing date of this Order to obtain counsel.. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that The Law Firm of Ellis & Venable, P.C., shall

provide a copy of this Order to the appropriate representative of the corporate Plaintiff. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to provide a copy

of this Order to Mr. H. Stephen Shehane, c/o Oretech, Inc., P.O. Box 1735, Columbus,

Georgia 31902-1735. 

DATED this 7th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00145-MHM Document 50 Filed 06/12/06 Page 2 of 2