Global Acquisitions Network et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al
Filing
117
ORDER GRANTING 108 PLAINTIFFS COUNSELS MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT ORIANA CAPITAL PARTNERS 99 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson . (lc) Modified on 12/20/2013. (lc).
1
2
O
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
GLOBAL ACQUISITIONS NETWORK,
a Wyoming corporation; SHAWN
CORNEILLE, an individual,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation;
ORIANA CAPITAL PARTNERS,LLC,
a Connecticut limited
liability company; ZANCO, a
company of unknown business
form, HLB FINANCIAL, LLC, a
company of unknown form; W/C
INVESTMETN HOLDINGS INC., a
Florida corporatin; DEXTER
CHAPPELL, an individual;
VALERIE CHAPPELL, an
individual; JON LEARY, an
individual; GLEN McINERNEY
also known as LARRY BENNETT,
an individual; CHRISTOPHER
RAY ZANCO, an individual;
BERNARD WOODSON, an
individual,
Defendants.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 12-08758 DDP (CWx)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
COUNSEL’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED
AS COUNSEL AND DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR ENTRY
OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST
DEFENDANT ORIANA CAPITAL PARTNERS
[Dkt. Nos. 99, 108]
26
27
28
Presently before the Court are attorney Irving Parchman’s
Motion To Be Relieved As Plaintiff’s Counsel (Docket No. 108) and
1
Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment Against Defendant
2
Oriana Capital Partners LLC (“OCP”) (Docket No. 99). For the
3
following reasons, the Court GRANTS Parchman’s Motion To Be
4
Relieved As Counsel and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Application for Default
5
Judgment.
6
I. Background
7
Plaintiffs Global Acquisitions Network and Shawn Corneille
8
(“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against multiple defendants,
9
alleging breach of contract and related causes of action. (FAC,
10
Docket No. 48.) The alleged facts are more fully laid out in the
11
Court’s prior order granting Bank of America’s motion to dismiss
12
the original complaint; the alleged facts did not change upon
13
filing of the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Docket Nos. 38,
14
60.) Following the filing of the FAC in March 2013, Defendant Bank
15
of America filed a motion to dismiss the FAC, which the Court
16
granted on June 7, 2013. (Docket No. 60.) Plaintiffs then proceeded
17
to seek entry of default against the remaining defendants in a
18
piecemeal fashion. Default was entered by the clerk against
19
Defendant Jon Leary on August 6, 2013 and against OCP on September
20
3, 2013. (Docket Nos. 79, 87.) The default entered against Leary
21
was set aside on December 17, 2013. (Docket No. 116.) Plaintiffs
22
are now seeking a default judgment against OCP. (Docket No. 99.) In
23
a separate motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Irving Parchman, seeks to
24
be relieved as counsel in this matter. (Docket No. 108.)
25
II. Motion To Be Relieved As Counsel
26
A. Legal Standard
27
Pursuant to Local Rule 83-2.3.2, “[a]n attorney may not
28
withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” When the attorney
2
1
represents an organization, the attorney “must give written notice
2
to the organization of the consequences of its inability to appear
3
pro se.” Local Rule 83-2.3.4. In determining whether adequate
4
grounds exist for excusing counsel from further representation,
5
federal courts generally look to applicable state law. The
6
California Rules of Professional Conduct permit withdrawal when a
7
client breaches an agreement to pay fees or expenses or when
8
conduct by a client “renders it unreasonably difficult for the
9
[attorney] to carry out the employment effectively.” CRPC 3-700(C).
10
Procedurally, notice must be given to the client of an attorney’s
11
motion to be relieved as counsel, and the motion must include an
12
explanation as to why the parties could not mutually agree to
13
substitution. CRC 3.1362. The court may deny an attorney’s request
14
to withdraw if the withdrawal would work an injustice. People v.
15
McCracken, 39 Cal. 2d 336 (1952).
16
B. Discussion
17
Mr. Parchman has complied with the procedural requirements for
18
attorney withdrawal. He states that he made multiple efforts to
19
contact Plaintiff Shawn Corneille directly to advise him that he
20
was no longer employed by Mr. Divens and that they needed to speak
21
about finding new counsel to represent Plaintiffs. (Parchman Decl.
22
¶¶ 4, 5, 7.) Mr. Parchman further states sufficient reasons for his
23
request to withdraw. He states that he has not received payment
24
from his former employer, Mr. Divens, for much of the work he has
25
performed in this matter and that, as a result, he is no longer
26
associated with Mr. Divens. (Docket No. 108, p. 3.) Further, Mr.
27
Parchman has been unable to contact Mr. Corneille regarding
28
alternate arrangements for payment or regarding his further
3
1
representation of Plaintiffs. (Id. at 4.) As a result, the Court
2
agrees that Mr. Parchman can no longer carry on effective
3
representation of Plaintiffs in this matter. Therefore, the Court
4
GRANTS Mr. Parchman’s motion to be relieved as counsel.1
5
III. Application for Default Judgment Against OCP
6
“The district court’s decision whether to enter a default
7
judgment is a discretionary one.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089,
8
1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Lack of merit of the underlying claims is a
9
sufficient basis for a district court to deny entry of default
10
judgment. Id.; see also Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472
11
(affirming district court’s denial of application for default
12
judgment on the grounds that “the district court could have had
13
serious reservations about the merits of [Plaintiff’s] substantive
14
claims”).
15
In this case, the Court noted in a prior order in this action
16
that it “has serious doubts about the plausibility of the scenario
17
alleged by Plaintiffs” (Docket No. 38, p. 6), and those doubts have
18
not been alleviated through the course of the litigation. The
19
Court’s reluctance to find Plaintiffs’ claims plausible is further
20
supported by Mr. Parchman’s desire to withdraw from representation
21
and distance himself from Mr. Divens, who has been disbarred by the
22
State of California, and Mr. Corneille, who Mr. Parchman alleges is
23
a personal friend and business partner of Mr. Divens. (Parchman
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court notes that in granting this motion, Plaintiffs are
now unrepresented by counsel in this matter. While Mr. Corneille
can represent himself in this matter going forward should he choose
to do so, Global Acquisitions Network, as an organizational
plaintiff, cannot pursue its claims without an attorney. See
Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Counsel,
506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993).
4
1
Decl., Docket No. 106, ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs now seek a default judgment
2
against OCP for over $31 million dollars and attorney’s fees of
3
nearly $400,000. (Docket No. 99, p. 4.) In light of the large
4
amount of money Plaintiffs seek and the Court’s concerns about the
5
plausibility of the facts alleged, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’
6
Application for Default Judgment Against OCP.
7
IV. Conclusion
8
9
10
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Mr. Parchman’s
Motion To Be Relieved As Counsel in this matter and DENIES
Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment Against OCP.
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated: December 20, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?