MOTION FOR LEAVE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF XXX

IN AND FOR XXX COUNTY

COMES NOW, XXX, pro se, and files this Response to Defendants All About Speech, LLC, A Better Learning Environment, LLC, XXX, individually, and XXX, (collectively, “Defendants”)’s motion to strike Plaintiffs’ Answer to Counterclaim, Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, Motion for Joinder, and Motion to Substitute Plaintiffs. In response thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:

                        i.         No application has been filed by Aliotta’s Investments, LLC

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s filings should be stricken because Plaintiff Aliotta’s Investments, LLC is representing itself. Plaintiff vehemently opposes said averments.

First, Plaintiff is fully informed that a corporation is not a natural person. It is an artificial entity created by law and as such it can neither practice law nor appear or act in person. See XXX. It is in this understanding that Plaintiff has neither attempted to represent XXX Investments, LLC, nor presented any application as being prepared by XXX Investments, LLC. All applications filed by Plaintiff reflect Danielle as the movant thereof. Plaintiff further asserts that to the extent some applications may have inadvertently mentioned XXX Investments, LLC as movant, such mistake should be considered errata, and the applications be considered as solely filed by XXX.

Next, there is a need to remove XXX Investments, LLC from the case since it was improperly joined to the case as Plaintiff. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1) provides that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest” See XXX. Also, substitution of a real party in interest “does not require a plaintiff to show that an initial failure to name the real party in interest resulted  from  an  understandable  mistake  or  difficulty  in  identifying  the proper party. See XXX. Plaintiff asserts that the need to replace XXX Investments with Christopher is necessitated by the fact that Christopher XXX is identified as a Counter Defendant in the Answer and Counterclaim filed by AAS and ABLE, on the basis that he is husband to Ms. XXX and at all relevant times, both were acting for and on behalf of their marital community. Besides, as already stated in Preston, Plaintiff does not need to prove the reason for naming the wrong party in interest.

                      ii.         Third party Christopher Aliotta has not engaged in unauthorized practice of law

It is trite law that a person knowingly engages in the unauthorized practice of law only if the person is aware that their conduct constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. See In XXX). It is in that regard that parties who admittedly knew that they should not be practicing law, knowingly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. See In XXX

In this case, Defendant argues that XXX engaged in unauthorized practice of law by allegeldly inter alia, sending emails indicating that it is indeed him filing and drafting pleadings, and rendering “advice” to Mrs. Aliotta that is customarily given by law firms. Plaintiff vehemently denies said averments. As a matter of fact, Christopher has not provided Plaintiff Danielle with any legal advice and have not acted as a lawyer. This Honorable Court should note that Plaintiff Danielle paid Legal Writers and Upwork Paralegals to help with all of the filings and provide ideas regarding options available for Danielle. Further, Danielle personally read, signed and agreed to every pleading that was filed.