Datatel Solutions, Inc., v. Keane Telecom Consulting, LLC, et al

Filing 42

ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL MOTION; AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 2/28/14. Motion to Withdraw as Attorney 40 is GRANTED; Attorney Stephanie Quinn TERMINATED; Plaintiff is GRANTED fourteen (14) days from the date on which this Order is filed to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiency in its dismissed complaint.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

DATATEL SOLUTIONS, INC., a
California corporation,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

2:12-CV-01306-GEB-EFB

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY
WITHDRAWAL MOTION; AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND
COUNTERCLAIM1

v.
KEANE TELECOM CONSULTING, LLC, a
New Jersey limited liability
company; OUTREACH TELECOM AND
ENERGY, LLC, a New Jersey
limited liability company,

15

Defendants.

16
17

21

OUTREACH TECHNOLOGY, LLC, a
Florida limited liability
company, as successor in
interest to KEANE TELECOM
CONSULTING, LLC, a New Jersey
limited liability company, and
to OUTREACH TELECOM AND ENERGY,
LLC, a New Jersey limited
liability company,

22

Counter-Plaintiff,

18
19
20

23
24
25

v.
DATATEL SOLUTIONS, INC., a
California corporation,
Counter-Defendant.

26
27
1

28

This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal.
R. 230(g).

1

1

Murphy, Campbell, Alliston & Quinn (“Murphy Campbell”)

2

moves

under

3

withdraw as counsel of record for Defendants and Counterclaimant.

4

The Local Rule prescribes: “[w]ithdrawal as attorney is governed

5

by

6

California

7

specifically

8

(C)(1)(f)

9

unopposed.

the

Local

Rules
.

of

of
.

Rule

182(d)

Professional
.

seeks

.”

E.D.

10

I.

an

Conduct

Cal.

withdrawal

Professional

for

R.

under

Conduct

order

of

allowing

the

182(d).

State

Murphy

subsections
Rule

3-700.

it

Bar

of

Campbell

(C)(1)(d)
The

to

motion

and
is

WITHDRAWAL MOTION

11

Murphy Campbell argues the firm’s clients have made it

12

“unreasonably difficult [for the firm] . . . to carry out the

13

employment

14

obligation to . . . [pay] [legal] fees.” (Mot. to Withdraw. 2:15-

15

18, ECF No. 40-1 (citing Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-

16

700(C)(1)(d),(f).)

17

effectively”

Stephanie

L.

and

“have

Quinn,

a

breache[d]

member

of

an

agreement

Murphy

or

Campbell,

18

declares: “the lead attorney handling this matter . . .[,] George

19

A. Guthrie,” left Murphy Campbell “on August 1, 2013, taking the

20

file in this matter with him under the representation that a

21

substitution of counsel form would be forthcoming.” (Decl. of

22

Stephanie L. Quinn in Support of Mot. to Withdraw (“Quinn Decl.”)

23

¶¶

24

Campbell has repeatedly attempted to communicate with Defendants’

25

representative, Peter Keane, to have him sign a substitution of

26

counsel

27

continue representing Defendants in this action; however, Keane

28

has not responded. (See id. at ¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 17, 18; see

3,

7

ECF

form

No.

or

40-2.)

indicate

Quinn

that

2

further

he

declares

wishes

Murphy

that

Murphy

Campbell

to

1

also Quinn Decl. Ex. 2, ECF No. 40-3.)

2

“there has been an outstanding balance [of legal fees Defendants

3

owe

4

continues to send invoices requesting payment (the most recent on

5

September

6

agreement, but Defendants have failed to and refused to pay the

7

invoices.” (Id. at ¶ 12.)

Murphy

Campbell]

13,

2013)

since

February

pursuant

to

the

Quinn also declares:

2013.

Murphy

parties’

Campbell

legal

services

8

Quinn declares that Murphy Campbell “sent a letter to .

9

. . Keane, [on February 4, 2014,] . . . advising him” that the

10

firm would be filing a motion to withdraw as counsel, and “if

11

[the]

12

complaint

13

against them.” (Id. at ¶ 20; see Quinn Decl. Ex. 5 ECF No. 40-3.)

14

Quinn further declares that the letter “provided [Defendants] the

15

court mandated [scheduling] deadlines [prescribed in this case].”

16

(Quinn Decl. ¶ 20; see Quinn Decl. Ex. 5 ECF No. 40-3.) Quinn

17

declares Murphy Campbell mailed the letter to Defendants’ current

18

address and to an alternate address at which the firm believes

19

Keane receives mail. (Quinn Decl. ¶ 20.) Quinn also declares

20

Murphy Campbell emailed the letter to addresses that the firm has

21

used in the past to communicate with Keane. (Id.)

22

motion

[were]

could

Murphy

granted,

immediately

Campbell’s

[Defendants’]
be

stricken

evidence

answer

and

evinces

and

default

that

the

cross

entered

firm’s

23

“client[s] . . . [have] render[ed] it unreasonably difficult for

24

[Murphy Campbell] to carry out the employment effectively, [and]

25

. . . [have] breache[d] an agreement or obligation . . . to [pay

26

legal] fees.” Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-700(C)(1)(d),(f).

27

Therefore, the motion is granted.

28

///
3

1

II. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

2

Further, on January 8, 2014, Plaintiff was issued an

3

order to show cause (“OSC”) requiring Plaintiff “to explain why

4

this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter

5

jurisdiction.” (Order to Show Cause 1:24-25, ECF No. 37.) The OSC

6

issued because Plaintiff alleges in its Complaint that it is

7

suing two limited liability companies (“LLC”) and that diversity

8

of citizenship subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C.

9

§ 1332; however, Plaintiff fails to allege the citizenship of

10

each member of the LLC Defendants. As stated in the OSC, the

11

Ninth Circuit held in Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage,

12

LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006), that “[a]n LLC is a

13

citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”

14

In

15

Counterclaimant

16

exists over the counterclaim without alleging the citizenship of

17

its owners/members. Therefore the Complaint and Counterclaim are

18

dismissed.

addition,

review
is

an

of
LLC

19

the
and

Counterclaim
alleges

reveals

diversity

that

jurisdiction

III. CONCLUSION

20

For the stated reasons, Murphy Campbell’s withdrawal

21

motion

is

22

dismissed.

23

on

24

addressing the deficiency in its dismissed complaint.

25

Dated:

which

granted,

and

the

Complaint

and

Counterclaim

are

Plaintiff is granted fourteen (14) days from the date
this

Order

is

filed

February 28, 2014

26
27
28
4

to

file

an

amended

complaint