One 3 Two Inc v. Akame Inc et al

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING WANGER & ASSOCIATES' MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 27 , 28 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court therefore GRANTS Wagner & Associates' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. (ECF Nos. 27, 289.) Wagner is ORDERED to serve a copy of this Order on all parties and file proof of service with the Court. (bp)

Download PDF
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ONE 3 TWO INC., dba OBEY CLOTHING, v. Plaintiff, AKAME, INC., dba DESTINY FASHIONS et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-6836-ODW(JCGx) ORDER GRANTING WAGNER & ASSOCIATES’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL [27], [28] Defendants. 16 On January 4, 2013, Defendant Eugene Okorie attempted to substitute himself 17 for his current counsel, Daniel Wagner of Wagner & Associates, and proceed pro se 18 on behalf of himself and Akame, Inc. 19 substitution because corporations may not represent themselves in federal court. 20 Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201– 21 02 (1993). (ECF No. 23.) (ECF No. 20.) The Court struck the 22 On February 14, 2013, Wagner & Associates moved to withdraw as counsel, 23 alleging that Defendants have failed to pay the firm any fees in over three months. 24 (Wagner Decl. ¶ 4.) Wagner has also had little communication with Defendants. 25 (Id. ¶ 3.) As of the date of this order, Defendants have not opposed the withdrawal. 26 Local Rule 83- requires an attorney to obtain leave from the court to 27 withdraw as counsel. California’s Rules of Professional Conduct generally govern an 28 attorney’s conduct before this Court, including circumstances permitting withdrawal. 1 See L.R. 83-3.1.2. An attorney may request permission to withdraw if the client has 2 breached a payment obligation to the attorney. Cal. R. Prof’l Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(f). 3 A district court has discretion to permit or deny an attorney’s withdrawal. 4 Huntington Learning Ctrs., Inc. v. Educ. Gateway, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-3200 5 PSG(VBKx), 2009 WL 2337863, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2009). Courts often 6 consider four factors: “(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice 7 withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the 8 administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the 9 resolution of the case.” Id. 10 Defendants have not paid Wagner for services rendered in over three months. 11 They have also had little to no communication with their attorney. Defendants were 12 apparently aware of Wagner’s desire to withdraw since at least January 4, 2013, 13 because Okorie purported to proceed pro se on behalf of himself and Akame, Inc. 14 Wagner also mailed a copy of this Motion to Defendants on February 14, 2013. 15 Further, none of the dates in the Court’s Scheduling and Case Management Order 16 have passed, so Defendants should not be unduly prejudiced by Wagner’s withdrawal. 17 The Court therefore GRANTS Wagner & Associates’ Motion to Withdraw as 18 Counsel. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) Wagner is ORDERED to serve a copy of this Order on 19 all parties and file proof of service with the Court. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 March 11, 2013 22 23 24 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?