Willick v. Trimark Associates, Inc.

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/14/14 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 37 MOTION to WITHDRAW as ATTORNEY. This matter is hereby STAYED for 60 days to give plaintiff (and counter-defendants, if appropriate), and counsel time to substitut e new counsel into the case; Plaintiff shall notify the court within 10 days if he (and counter-defendants, if appropriate), engage new counsel; all pending dates in this matter are hereby VACATED; and this matter is SET for a Status Conference on 6/30/14 at 1:30 p.m. Status Conference set for 6/30/2014 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RYAN WILLICK,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. CIV. S-12-2884 LKK/KJN

v.

ORDER

TRIMARK ASSOCIATES, INC.,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Nageley, Meredith & Miller, Inc. (“Nageley”) has filed an

18

application to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Ryan Willick.

19

ECF No. 37.

20

the application.

21

however, as several matters must first be addressed.

Defendant has filed a statement of non-opposition to
The application cannot be granted at this time,

First, plaintiff will be left without counsel if the

22
23

application is granted, requiring Nageley to comply with E.D.

24

Cal. R. 182(d).

25

“an affidavit stating the current or last known address or

26

addresses of the client.”1

That Local Rule requires, among other things,

This information does not appear in

27
1

28

The court is satisfied that the client has been notified, as
also required by the Local Rule, as evidenced by his written,
1

1

the application.

2
3

Second, the application does not show compliance with Cal.
R. Prof. Conduct § 3-700, which states:

4

A member shall not withdraw from employment
until the member has taken reasonable steps
to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to
the rights of the client, including giving
due notice to the client, allowing time for
employment of other counsel, complying with
rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable
laws and rules.

5
6
7
8

While the application appears to show good cause for withdrawing
9
as counsel, it does not show what steps Nageley has taken to
10
avoid prejudice to plaintiff, who will be left pro se, nor does
11
it show that it has given plaintiff sufficient time to procure
12
new counsel, nor does it show compliance with Cal. R. Prof.
13
Conduct § 3-700(D) (regarding the return of fees and papers).2
14
Third, defendant Trimark Associates, Inc. has filed a
15
counter-claim in this case against Willick and Willick Project
16
Management Solutions, LLC (“WPMS”).

Counterclaim, ECF No. 15.

17
Trimark alleges that WPMS “is a limited liability company
18
organized and existing under the laws of California.”
19
Counterclaim ¶ 5.

It appears that Nageley represents both

20
counter-defendants.

See Counter-Defendants’ Answer, ECF No. 21.

21
The application should let the court know if Nageley is seeking
22
to withdraw as counsel for counter-defendant Willick and for
23
counter-defendant WPMS.

If WPMS is left without counsel, it

24
cannot proceed in this court, as a business entity can only
25
26
27

signed consent appended to the application.
2

Rather, Nageley seeks to do this in reverse, namely, first
withdraw, then give the client time to find new counsel.

28
2

1

proceed here with counsel, and it may therefore be subject to a

2

default judgment against it.3

3

withdraw as counsel to WPMS, it must show what steps it has taken

4

to avoid prejudice to that client.

5

Accordingly, if Nageley wishes to

However, since it appears that counsel and its client have

6

agreed that withdrawal should occur, and defendant has no

7

objection to withdrawal, the court orders as follows:

8
9
10

1.

The application to withdraw as counsel is DENIED

without prejudice to its renewal in proper form as discussed
above;

11

2.

This matter is hereby STAYED for sixty (60) days

12

to give plaintiff (and counter-defendants, if appropriate), and

13

counsel time to substitute new counsel into the case;

14

3.

Plaintiff shall notify the court within ten (10)

15

days if he (and counter-defendants, if appropriate), engage new

16

counsel;

17

4.

18

VACATED; and

19

5.

20

All pending dates in this matter are hereby

This matter is set for a Status Conference on June

30, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

DATED:

April 14, 2014.

23
24
25
26
27

3

The court notes that Nageley asserts that WPMS was erroneously
sued, and that the entity is actually Ryan Willick dba Willick
Project Management Solutions, LLC.

28
3