The Orchard Enterprises, Inc. v. TufAmerica, Inc.

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 08/10/09 ORDERING that dft's atty's 52 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney is DENIED. (Benson, A.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. R. 78-230(h). 1
*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE ORCHARD ENTERPRISE, Inc., a Delaware corporation,

TUFAMERICA, Inc., a New York corporation, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2:08-cv-00553 ORDER*

Defendant's attorney's motion to withdraw as Defendant's counsel, filed June 26, 2009, is denied since the movant's conclusory statements that "[a] substantial strategic difference of opinion, [and] breakdown of attorney client communication," do not justify granting the motion. Moreover, Defendant would be prejudiced if the

motion is granted because a corporation "can only appear in [this] court proceeding only through an attorney at law." In re Highley, 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972); see also L.R. 85-183(a) ("A corporation or other entity may appear only by an attorney."); Lindsey v. Admiral

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

Ins. Co., 804 F. Supp. 47, 52 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (noting a corporation "cannot appear pro per."). motion. This prejudice is not discussed in the

Further, it has not been shown why counsel should be allowed

to withdraw when trial is scheduled to commence on October 27, 2009. Dated: August 10, 2009

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

2