Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

GEESA v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, CV 09-04881 CRB. (2013)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20130429659 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 25, 2013
Latest Update: Jan. 25, 2013
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO ACCEPT MOORE DRY DOCK COMPANY and VERITAS CONSTRUCTION, INC.'S SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYS CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge. Defendants MOORE DRY DOCK COMPANY ("Moore Dry Dock") and VERITAS CONSTRUCTION, INC. ("Veritas") ceased doing business in 1960, but has not declared bankruptcy. Moore Dry Dock and Veritas's person most knowledgeable, James Moore, became unable to testify at deposition several years ago because of advanced age, and he died in 2012. Moo
More

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO ACCEPT MOORE DRY DOCK COMPANY and VERITAS CONSTRUCTION, INC.'S SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYS

CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.

Defendants MOORE DRY DOCK COMPANY ("Moore Dry Dock") and VERITAS CONSTRUCTION, INC. ("Veritas") ceased doing business in 1960, but has not declared bankruptcy. Moore Dry Dock and Veritas's person most knowledgeable, James Moore, became unable to testify at deposition several years ago because of advanced age, and he died in 2012.

Moore Dry Dock and Veritas's insurer wants to change defense counsel, requiring a substitution of attorneys. There is no representative of Moore Dry Dock and Veritas to sign the substitution of attorneys.

Moore Dry Dock and Veritas request an order directing the Clerk of the Court to accept the substitution of attorneys in this case, even though the substitution will lack the signature of a Moore Dry Dock and Veritas representative.

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, this Court directs the clerk of the court to accept for filing the attached substitution of attorney even though it does not include a signature for the clients.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer