Allied World National Assurance Co., et al. v. SK PM Corp. et al.
Filing
130
ORDER GRANTING IN PART Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record 118 ; ORDER Directing Clerk to Update Docket and Serve Defendants, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/13/2013. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
ALLIED WORLD NATIONAL
ASSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
13
14
v.
SK PM CORP., et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:10-cv-01262 - LJO - JLT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD
(Doc. 118)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO UPDATE
DOCKET AND SERVE DEFENDANTS
On April 2, 2013, David Winton moved to withdraw as counsel for the defendants. (Doc. 118).
18
The Court held a hearing on May 13, 2013, and the motion was not opposed by any party. For the
19
reasons set forth below, the motion to withdraw as attorney of record is GRANTED IN PART.
20
I.
21
Background
Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint on July 14, 2010, seeking “to obtain a
22
judicial determination and declaration regarding the parties’ rights and obligations with respect to two
23
insurance policies.” (Doc. 1 at 8). Plaintiffs allege the defendants are insureds under Policy No.
24
C011427/001, issued by Allied World National to S.K. Foods PM Corporation for coverage that
25
commenced February 19, 2009 and ended on August 17, 2009 (“the Primary Policy”). Id. In addition,
26
Plaintiffs allege the defendants sought coverage from Allied World “under Excess Directors &
27
Officers Liability Insurance Following Form Policy No. C011818/001, which was to be issued to S.K.
28
Foods PM Corp. for the April 8, 2009 to February 19, 2010 Policy Period” (“the Excess Policy”).
1
1
(Doc. 1 at 8). However, Plaintiffs assert the defendants failed to pay the requisite premium for the
2
Excess Policy. Id.
According to Plaintiffs, the defendants represented to Plaintiffs during the underwriting
3
4
process for the Primary and Excess Policies that SK Food Group, encompassing entities owned and
5
operated by Scott Salyer and his family, “was in good financial health and had strong revenues and
6
profits.” (Doc. 1 at 9). However, Plaintiffs assert that the defendants knew this information was false,
7
and knew it would be necessary for several entities “to reorganize, through bankruptcy or otherwise,
8
and sell substantially all of their assets in order to satisfy debts owed. . .” Id. Plaintiffs allege neither
9
the Primary Policy nor Excess Policy would have been issued had they known the truth regarding SK
10
Food Group’s financial condition. Id. Therefore, Allied World seeks to rescind certain coverage
11
provisions of the Primary Policy. Id. at 8. Further, Plaintiffs seek “a declaration that the Excess
12
Policy was never effectively issued or delivered as a result of the Defendants’ non-payment of
13
premium, and is inoperative.” Id. In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek to rescind provisions of the Excess
14
Policy for misrepresentation and concealment of material facts. Id.
On April 29, 2010, Scott Salyer was indicted for racketeering, wire fraud, falsifying records,
15
16
and conspiracy in restraint of trade arising out of his operation of SK Foods. On April 28, 2011,
17
defendants filed a motion to stay the proceeding pending resolution of the criminal case pending
18
against Salyer (Doc. 59), which was granted by the Court on July 28, 2011. (Doc. 75).
The parties filed a joint status report on May 17, 2012, reporting that “Salyer pleaded guilty to
19
20
one count of racketeering and one count of price fixing,” and he was scheduled to be sentenced on
21
July 10, 2012. (Doc. 90 at 4-5). As part of the plea agreement, the remaining charges against Salyer
22
were to be dropped at the time of sentencing. Id. at 5. Plaintiffs informed the Court they intended “to
23
file an amended complaint adding Salyer’s admitted criminal conduct as an additional basis for
24
rescission of the policies.” Id. at 6. The stay was lifted on October 18, 2012. (Doc. 102).
25
II.
26
Legal Standards for Withdrawal of Counsel
Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of
27
California, and the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. See
28
LR 182. The withdrawal of representation is permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct if a
2
1
client “renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry our employment effectively.” Cal.
2
R.P.C. 3-700(C)(1)(d). Local Rule 182(d) provides:
Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may not withdraw
leaving the client in propria persona without leave of court upon noticed motion and
notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared. The attorney shall provide
an affidavit stating the current or last known address or addresses of the client and the
efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw.
3
4
5
6
7
Id. Likewise, California’s Rules require the notice of motion and declaration to be served on the client
8
and other parties who have appeared in the case. CRC 3.1362(d).
The decision to grant withdrawal is within the discretion of the Court, and withdrawal “may be
9
10
granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.” LR 182; see Canandaigua Wine
11
Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4238, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2009) (“The decision to
12
grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court.”). Factors
13
the Court may consider include: (1) the reasons for withdrawal, (2) prejudice that may be caused to the
14
other litigants, (3) harm caused to the administration of justice; and (4) delay to the resolution of the
15
case caused by withdrawal. Canandaigua Wine Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4238, at *4.
16
III.
Discussion and Analysis
17
David Winton (“Counsel”) asserts that his law offices are no longer able to represent the
18
defendants in this action.1 Mr. Winton asserts the defendant’s “conduct renders it unreasonably
19
difficult” to carry out his representation in an effective manner. (Doc. 118-1 at 3). In support of the
20
motion, Mr. Winton filed a declaration in which he asserts he is “currently in a position where it
21
appears a withdrawal is proper and necessary pursuant to the provisions of Rule 3-700(C)(1)(d).”
22
(Winton Decl. ¶ 4, Doc. 118-2 at 3).
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Curiously, in his request for withdrawal as counsel, Mr. Winton identified only Scott Salyer; Neal Alexander as
trustee for the Scott Salyer Revocable Trust; Robert Pruet as trustee for the Caroline Gazelle Salyer Irrevocable Trust and
Stefanie Anne Salyer Irrevocable Trust; SK PM Corp., also known as “S.K. Foods PM Corp.;” Blackstone Ranch; CSSS
LP, doing business as Central Valley Shippers; and SSC Farms III, LLC. (Doc. 118-1). However, Mr. Winton was listed
as the counsel of record for many other defendants named by Plaintiff in the operative complaint (Doc. 107). Thus, despite
that this motion will be granted, Mr. Winton remains as counsel of record for: 1.) SS Farms LLC, 2.) SARS, LLC, 3.)
SK Foods LLC, 4.) S.K. Foods PM Corp., 5.) SKF Aviation, LLC, 6.) SSC Farming, LLC, 7.) SSC Farms I, LLC, 8.)
SSC Farms II, LLC, 9.) SK Farm Services, LLC, 10.) SK Frozen Foods, LLC, 11.) Carmel Wine Merchants LLC
and 12.) Salyer American Cooling.
3
1
Mr. Winton reports he notified the defendants “about the need to find substitute counsel.” (Doc.
2
118-1 at 4). Mr. Winton asserts he “is informed and believed that new counsel has been retained for all
3
parties except the Scott Salyer Revocable Trust . . ., but that there is unexplained delay in obtaining
4
substitutions of attorney.” Id. Indeed, after Mr. Winton filed this motion, the Court granted a
5
substitution of attorney filed on behalf of The Caroline Gazelle Salyer Irrevocable Trust, and The
6
Stefanie Ann Salyer Irrevocable Trust by and through Robert Pruett, Trustee. (Docs. 124, 126). Thus,
7
as to these Defendants, the motion is MOOT.
The declaration and proof of service indicate Mr. Winton has served the parties with documents
8
9
required by the California Rules. No party has filed an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to
10
the motion to withdrawal, and it does not appear Plaintiffs would suffer prejudice as a result of the
11
withdrawal. Given that discovery remains open for several months, it appears any delay caused by the
12
withdrawal would be minimal and there is little risk of harm to the administration of justice.
13
IV.
14
Conclusion and Order
Mr. Winton followed the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in the California
15
Rules of Professional Conduct and the Local Rules in filing the motion to withdraw as counsel, and set
16
forth sufficient reasons for the withdrawal. Therefore, the Court is acting within its discretion to grant
17
the motion to withdraw. See LR 182.
18
The corporate defendants are warned that “[i]t is a longstanding rule that [c]orporations and
19
other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.” D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v.
20
Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004)
21
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
22
1.
The motion to withdraw is MOOT as to Defendants Neal Alexander as trustee for the
23
Scott Salyer Revocable Trust; Robert Pruet as trustee for the Caroline Gazelle Salyer Irrevocable Trust
24
and Stefanie Anne Salyer Irrevocable Trust;
25
2.
The motion to withdraw is GRANTED as to Defendants Frederick Scott Salyer; Neal
26
Alexander as trustee for the Scott Salyer Revocable Trust; CSSS LP, doing business as Central Valley
27
Shippers; and SSC Farms III, LLC only. Mr. Winton remains as counsel of record for Defendants SS
28
Farms LLC; SARS, LLC; SK Foods LLC; S.K. Foods PM Corp.; SKF Aviation, LLC; SSC Farming,
4
1
LLC; SSC Farms I, LLC; SSC Farms II, LLC; SK Farm Services, LLC; SK Frozen Foods, LLC;
2
Carmel Wine Merchants LLC; and Salyer American Cooling;
3
3.
The Clerk’s Office SHALL TERMINATE David Winton as “Attorney to be Noticed”
4
for Defendants Frederick Scott Salyer; Neal Alexander as trustee for the Scott Salyer Revocable Trust;
5
CSSS LP, doing business as Central Valley Shippers; and SSC Farms III, LLC in the Court docket,
6
and update the docket to reflect their last known contact information as follows:
F. Scott Salyer
3903 Ronda Road
Pebble Beach, CA 93953
7
8
9
4.
Replacement counsel SHALL enter an appearance in this matter within 21 days; and
10
5.
Defendants are advised that failure to comply with the Local Rules, Federal Rules, or a
11
Court Order, may result in dismissal of this action pursuant to Local Rule 110.
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 13, 2013
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
DEAC_Signature-END:
16
9j7khijed
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?