Free Motion to Substitute Attorney - District Court of California - California

Case 5:07-cv-04507-JF

Document 27

Filed 11/09/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

LINDA SHAO (CA 182768) LAW OFFICE OF LINDA SHAO, APLC 28 North First Street, Suite 618 San Jose, CA 95131 Phone: 408-873-3888 Fax: 408-873-3889 Attorney for Defendant PTI Global Inc. Limited Scope of Representation for filing this Opposition only Specially appearing only UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ACTICON TECHNOLOGIES LLC Plaintiff, vs. PRETEC ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, et al. Defendants I, Linda Shao, declare that: 1. I am duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and this District. I have LINDA SHAO'S REQUEST TO BE RELEASED FROM REPRESENTATION Date: 11/9/07 Time: Honorable Fogel Case No. C07-4507BZ

personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. 2. I was retained this late morning to help out the emergency situation of Defendant PTI

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 original patent but an extended one which might have antitrust issue. However, as I am not a 25 26 27 28 patent attorney, I cannot render any opinion over it. I asked PTI to look for a patent attorney but the General Manager Mr. Tong would be leaving the country for a long business trip and unable to find a patent attorney before he left. My understanding was that the company is very small with
Acticon vs. Pretec et al., Case No. C07-04507 BZ Page 1 Decl. Shao supporting Opposition to motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction

Global, Inc. as being the due date for filing opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for TRO. My representation is with limited scope only to write the opposition to this motion. 3. My scope of representation was agreed to be very limited for caring for its emergency

situation because I am not a licensed patent attorney and from my rough understanding I believe there is an antitrust issue for the reason that the patent Plaintiff based its complaint on was not the

Case 5:07-cv-04507-JF

Document 27

Filed 11/09/2007

Page 2 of 3

only 3 staffs and Mr. Tong is the only one person who may handle this. In pure benign intent to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I was unable to make any comments on patent issues but purely on a general civil litigation issues. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 impossible and thus submit this in writing instead of making appearance. I respectfully requests 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Acticon vs. Pretec et al., Case No. C07-04507 BZ Page 2 Decl. Shao supporting Opposition to motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction

help them out in view of justice to defend against Plaintiff's wrongful TRO application, I helped them by working through night. The TRO if issued will substantial impacted the small company's reputation on retailing, while Plaintiff confused the identify of parties and failed to do service on all parties. 4. I did not receive retainer other than my writing work on opposition. They understood that

5.

I saw that after Plaintiff's counsel received the e-filing notification of my substitution of

attorney, Plaintiff filed their supplemental briefs without seeking the Court's order to relief from the late filing in violation of the local rule. Such filings by Plaintiff apparently was made trying to take advantage of PTI's lack of counsel representation. My task under the agreement with PTI is over, however. I have conflict of schedule pertaining to my two days trial next week at the Superior Court

of California, Santa Clara County and have been rushing a very crucial paperwork to be filed today such that I do not think I will be able to squeeze a time to appear. If I should finish the paperwork before the hearing time, which I doubt I could, I would appear. 7. I was told by the clerk last Friday that the Court requires me to do a Request because PTI is

a corporation that cannot be without counsel. Initially I intended to appear but now seems like

the Court to release me from representation of PTI. I swear under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Dated: 11/9/2007 _________/s/______________ Linda Shao

Case 5:07-cv-04507-JF

Document 27

Filed 11/09/2007

Page 3 of 3

Certificate of Service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Executed on November 9, 2007, at Cupertino, California. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Linda Shao 23 24 25 26 27 28
Acticon vs. Pretec et al., Case No. C07-04507 BZ Page 3 Decl. Shao supporting Opposition to motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction

I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 28 N. First St., Ste. 618; San Jose, CA 95113. On November 9, 2007, while Plaintiff's counsel will receive automatic efiling notification, I will cause the server to serve the following documents Linda Shao's request to be released from representation and filed substitution of attorney; proposed order of release upon: Robert J. Yorio Colby b. springer Christine S. Watson Carr & Ferrell, LLP 2200 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 [x] BY PERSONAL SERVICE to deliver such envelope by hand to the office of the addressees, at the above-mentioned address before 11:00 a.m. today.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the U.S. that the above is true and correct. /s/___________________ Linda Shao

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Jose, California on October 10, 2007. __/s/_______________