Tim Bekins et al v. Dmitry Zheleznyak et al

Filing 66

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND STAY PROCEEDINGS by Judge Christina A. Snyder: On 6/29/2016, Niehaus LLP and The Rogson Firm (collectively, "Withdrawing Counsel"), counsel for defendants Dmitry Zheleznyak and Akvin ta USA, Inc., filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record in this action 61 . Upon the Court's review, it appears that it would pose an ethical violation for Withdrawing Counsel to continue representing Zheleznyak and Akvinta in this matter . Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Withdrawing Counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel. In addition, pursuant to Withdrawing Counsels request, the Court finds that a brief stay of these proceedings is appropriate so that defendants Zheleznyak and Akvinta may obtain new counsel. Accordingly, the Court hereby STAYS these proceedings for 60 days. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-04478-CAS(ASx)

Title

TIM BEKINS V. DMITRY ZHELEZNYAK, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

July 14, 2016

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) - MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
AND STAY PROCEEDINGS (Dkt. 61, filed June 29, 2016)

On June 29, 2016, Niehaus LLP and The Rogson Firm (collectively, “Withdrawing
Counsel”), counsel for defendants Dmitry Zheleznyak (“Zheleznyak”) and Akvinta USA,
Inc. (“Akvinta”), filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record in this action. Dkt. 61.
On July 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed an opposition to this motion. Dkt. 64.1
Withdrawing Counsel contend that their continued representation of Zheleznyak
and Akvinta in this matter would result in a violation of the ethical rules of New York
and California, by which Niehaus LLP and The Rogson Firm are bound, respectively.
Specifically, when this matter began, Withdrawing Counsel represented all of the
defendants in this matter—Zheleznyak, Akvinta, and an additional defendant, Jeffrey
Becker (“Becker”). On May 4, 2016, Becker filed a request to substitute a new attorney,
Edwin Cottone, in place of Withdrawing Counsel. Dkt. 50, 51. The Court granted this
request. Dkt. 53, 54. Thereafter, Becker’s new counsel filed a cross-claim on his behalf
against Zheleznyak and Akvinta. Dkt. 52. Accordingly, there is presently a conflict in
this action between Withdrawing Counsel’s current clients (Zheleznyak and Akvinta) and
their former client (Becker). Under applicable ethical rules, Withdrawing Counsel may
not continue to represent Zheleznyak and Akvinta in this matter without the informed
written consent of Becker. See Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-310(C)(2) (“A member shall not,
without the informed written consent of each client: . . . Accept or continue representation
of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the clients actually conflict . .
1

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of July 11,
2016, is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-cv-04478-CAS(ASx)

Date

Title

‘O’

July 14, 2016

TIM BEKINS V. DMITRY ZHELEZNYAK, ET AL.

.”); N.Y. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9(a) (“A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a
matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related
matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former
client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.”).
Withdrawing counsel represents that, despite numerous conversations between the
relevant parties, Becker has determined not to provide his informed written consent to
Withdrawing Counsel’s continued participation in this matter. Accordingly,
Withdrawing Counsel requests that the Court permit them to withdraw as counsel.
Upon the Court’s review, it appears that it would pose an ethical violation for
Withdrawing Counsel to continue representing Zheleznyak and Akvinta in this matter.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Withdrawing Counsel’s motion to withdraw as
counsel.2 In addition, pursuant to Withdrawing Counsel’s request, the Court finds that a
brief stay of these proceedings is appropriate so that defendants Zheleznyak and Akvinta
may obtain new counsel. Accordingly, the Court hereby STAYS these proceedings for
sixty (60) days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

:

00

CMJ

2

Plaintiffs object to the instant motion and contend that if the court permits Withdrawing
Counsel to withdraw it will result in a delay of, among other things, discovery in this
matter. Nonetheless, given that the continued involvement of Withdrawing Counsel in
this matter would appear to pose an ethical violation, the Court finds that it must grant
Withdrawing Counsel’s motion, notwithstanding any potential delay to these
proceedings.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2