Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-04327/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-04327-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 18:1836(a) - Injunction against Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

---

Case No.: 5:18-cv-04327-EJD

ORDER DENYING NON-PARTY ARUMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL

1

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

P. STEPHEN LAMONT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID KRANE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:18-cv-04327-EJD 

ORDER DENYING NON-PARTY 

ARUMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S 

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 90, 91, 93

Presently before the court is a three-page motion to appoint counsel by Arumai 

Technologies, Inc. (“Arumai”) filed under the ECF user Stephen Lamont, pro se Plaintiff in the 

above captioned case, to enable Arumai to file a motion to intervene. Dkt. No. 90 (“Mot.”). 

Defendants Google Ventures and David Krane (“GV”) filed an opposition (Dkt. No. 91) to which 

Defendants Kevin Connor and Conner & Associates (“Conner”) join (Dkt. No. 93).

This court holds no authority in appointment of counsel for a corporation in a civil matter. 

See Inland Concrete Enters. v. Kraft Ams. L.P., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180334, at *6 (C.D. Cal. 

July 6, 2015) citing, NK Beer Wine, Inc. v. United States, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55032, *3 (W.D. 

Mich. June 29, 2009), citing Specialty Vehicle Acquisition Corp. v. Am. Sunroof Corp., No. 07-

13887, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8934, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 7, 2008) (“There is no provision in a 

statute, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Local Rules allowing this Court to appoint 

counsel for a corporation in a civil matter. Nor is there any source of funding available to pay an 

attorney to represent a corporation in a civil matter.”). 

Arumai’s motion to appoint counsel will be denied. Here, this motion is filed by a nonCase 5:18-cv-04327-EJD Document 128 Filed 05/07/19 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 5:18-cv-04327-EJD

ORDER DENYING NON-PARTY ARUMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

party unverified corporation without any supported affidavit or declaration as required by Civil 

Local Rule 7-2(d). Arumai cites no authority in its request. The motion is also unsigned and 

instead simply includes three names at the end of the document: Gregory B. Thagard, Shyam 

Krishnamurthy, and Philippe Gaglione. Mot. at 3. The motion states that Arumai seeks to 

intervene in Plaintiff Lamont’s action against Defendants Conner, GV, and Catherine Straggas. 

And that, according to Arumai, thirty-eight law firms in the San Francisco Bay Area are prohibited 

from representing it due to conflict checks. Mot. at 2. 

In addition to the lack of compliance with the local rules in filing of this motion, Arumai 

does not provide sufficient facts or authority to support this court in taking such an extraordinary 

action in appointing counsel in this civil action. Hernandez v. San Diego Sheriff’s Dep’t, 2000 

U.S. App. LEXIS 9959, at *5 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating “[t]here is no constitutional right to counsel 

in civil cases, and district courts may appoint counsel in civil cases only under exceptional 

circumstances”).

Accordingly, the motion to appoint counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-04327-EJD Document 128 Filed 05/07/19 Page 2 of 2