Aaron & Andrew Inc et al v. Sears Holdings Management Corp et al

Filing 206

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEYS' OF RECORD (DKT. NO. 195 ) by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. Based upon the representations of Plaintiffs' counsel, the Court concludes that Counsel has made a sufficient showing of good cause and thus GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw. Plaintiffs are admonished that as corporate entities, they must have counsel to proceed in this action. LR 83-2.2.2 ("No organization or entity of any other kind (including corporations, limi ted liability corporations, partnerships, limited liability partnerships, unincorporated associations, trusts) may appear in any action or proceeding unless represented by an attorney permitted to practice before this Court under L.R. 83-2.1."). Plaintiffs are granted until October 27, 2017, to retain new counsel and have counsel file a Notice of Appearance. (See Dkt. No. 204 ). The failure to retain new counsel may result in this action being dismissed for failure to prosecute. (See document for further details). (mr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AARON & ANDREW, INC. and AARON
DESIGN,

12
13
14
15

CASE NO. CV 14-1196 SS

Plaintiffs,
v.
SEARS HOLDINGS MANAGEMENT
CORP., et al.,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
ATTORNEYS’ OF RECORD (DKT.
NO. 195)

Defendants.

16
17
18

On August 10, 2017, Bradshaw & Associates, P.C., Plaintiffs’

19

counsel of record (“Counsel”), filed a Motion to Withdraw as

20

Attorneys of Record (“Motion to Withdraw”). (Dkt. 195). Defendants

21

do not oppose the Motion. (Dkt. No. 197). On September 26, 2017,

22

the Court held a telephonic hearing and granted the Motion to

23

Withdraw.

24

appeared at the hearing and participated.

25

Plaintiffs’ representative of the need to find new counsel.

26

Court issues the current order to provide the basis for the Court’s

27

ruling.

28

(Dkt.

Nos.

204,

205).

Plaintiffs’

representative

The Court advised
The

1

Local Rule 83–2.3.2 allows an attorney to withdraw as counsel

2

only upon leave of court. If withdrawal will cause delay in the

3

case, the court will not allow the attorney to withdraw “[u]nless

4

good cause is shown and the ends of justice require [such relief].”

5

L.R. 83–2.3.5. A district court’s order concerning “counsel’s

6

motion to withdraw is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” United

7

States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009); LaGrand v.

8

Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998).

9
10

In the Motion to Withdraw, Counsel asserts that “Plaintiffs

11

have failed to cooperate and communicate with Counsel and the

12

attorney-client

13

(Dkt. No. 195 at 1).

14

any evidence to challenge this assertion, despite participating in

15

the hearing on the Motion.

16

offered Counsel “the option to withdraw as counsel.” (Id. at 3).

17

Counsel also asserts that “[w]ithdrawal will result in no delays

18

in

19

Plaintiffs on July 6, 2017, of his intent to withdraw and the next

20

case deadline is not until December 2017. (Id. at 3-4). Thus, if

21

Plaintiffs promptly retain new counsel, they will not be prejudiced

22

by Counsel’s withdrawal. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-2.3.4, Counsel

23

provided written notice to Plaintiffs on September 13, 2017, that

24

they may not appear pro se because they are corporate entities and

25

that failure to retain new counsel could result in their case being

26

dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 203).

prosecution

relationship

of

[has]

irretrievably

broken

down.”

Plaintiffs’ representatives have not offered

the

Furthermore, Plaintiffs apparently

case.”

(Id.

27
28
2

at

4).

Counsel

notified

1

Based upon the representations of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the

2

Court concludes that Counsel has made a sufficient showing of good

3

cause and thus GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw.

4

admonished that as corporate entities, they must have counsel to

5

proceed in this action. LR 83-2.2.2 (“No organization or entity of

6

any

7

corporations,

8

unincorporated associations, trusts) may appear in any action or

9

proceeding unless represented by an attorney permitted to practice

10

before this Court under L.R. 83-2.1.”). Plaintiffs are granted

11

until October 27, 2017, to retain new counsel and have counsel file

12

a Notice of Appearance. (See Dkt. No. 204). The failure to retain

13

new counsel may result in this action being dismissed for failure

14

to prosecute.

other

kind

(including

partnerships,

corporations,
limited

Plaintiffs are

limited

liability

liability

partnerships,

15
16

Bradshaw & Associates shall serve a copy of this Order on

17

Plaintiffs, shall file a copy of the proof of service of the Order

18

within seven days of the date of this Order, and shall otherwise

19

comply with all applicable rules of professional responsibility.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

DATED:

October 3, 2017

24
/S/
__________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4