Amazon.com Inc v. Grato International

W.D. Washington

Amazon.com Inc v. Grato International

DecidedMay 2, 2025

Docket2:22-cv-01205

StatusUnknown

This text of Amazon.com Inc v. Grato International (Amazon.com Inc v. Grato International) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amazon.com Inc v. Grato International, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7

8 AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01205-RSL 9 Plaintiffs, v. 10

11 GRATO INTERNATIONAL, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 Defendants.

14 This matter comes before the Court on defendant Rizwan Iqbal’s letter request for 15 court-appointed counsel. Dkt. # 61. 16 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v. 17 Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). However, a court may under 18 “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional 20 circumstances” exist, a court must consider “the likelihood of success on the 21 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 22 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Neither of these considerations is dispositive 23 and instead must be viewed together. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 24 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

25 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, the party seeking 26 appointment of counsel must show indigency. 29 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 1 Mr. Iqbal has not provided any information regarding his financial situation, the 2 merits of the case, or his capacity to understand and defend himself from the claims 3 asserted in this litigation. The only argument made in support of the request for court- 4 5 appointed counsel is that Mr. Iqbal is in Canada and it would be difficult for him to 6 manage counsel in Seattle, Washington. But that problem will persist regardless of whether 7 Mr. Iqbal retains counsel or counsel is appointed by the Court. 8 Mr. Iqbal has not shown the sort of exceptional circumstances that justify 9 10 appointment of counsel at the public’s expense. The motion for appointment of counsel is 11 therefore DENIED. 12

13 DATED this 2nd day of May, 2025. 14

15 A 16

17 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7

8 AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01205-RSL 9 Plaintiffs, v. 10

11 GRATO INTERNATIONAL, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 Defendants.

14 This matter comes before the Court on defendant Rizwan Iqbal’s letter request for 15 court-appointed counsel. Dkt. # 61. 16 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v. 17 Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). However, a court may under 18 “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional 20 circumstances” exist, a court must consider “the likelihood of success on the 21 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 22 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Neither of these considerations is dispositive 23 and instead must be viewed together. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 24 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

25 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, the party seeking 26 appointment of counsel must show indigency. 29 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 1 Mr. Iqbal has not provided any information regarding his financial situation, the 2 merits of the case, or his capacity to understand and defend himself from the claims 3 asserted in this litigation. The only argument made in support of the request for court- 4 5 appointed counsel is that Mr. Iqbal is in Canada and it would be difficult for him to 6 manage counsel in Seattle, Washington. But that problem will persist regardless of whether 7 Mr. Iqbal retains counsel or counsel is appointed by the Court. 8 Mr. Iqbal has not shown the sort of exceptional circumstances that justify 9 10 appointment of counsel at the public’s expense. The motion for appointment of counsel is 11 therefore DENIED. 12

13 DATED this 2nd day of May, 2025. 14

15 A 16

17 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Amazon.com Inc v. Grato International, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amazoncom-inc-v-grato-international-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack