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