MyECheck, Inc. v. Seven Miles Securities et al
Filing
63
ORDER denying without prejudice Mr. Katz's 56 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/1/16. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MYECHECK, INC.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:14-cv-02889-KJM-AC
v.
ORDER
SEVEN MILES SECURITIES, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
This matter is before the court on Brian R. Katz’s motion to withdraw as counsel
18
19
for plaintiff. Mot, ECF No. 56. The motion is unopposed. As explained below, the motion is
20
DENIED.
21
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
22
The local rules of this district require an attorney who would withdraw and leave
23
his or her client without representation to obtain leave of the court upon a noticed motion. E.D.
24
Cal. L.R. 182(d). Local Rule 182(d) also requires an attorney to provide notice to the client and
25
all other parties who have appeared, and an affidavit stating the current or last known address of
26
the client. Finally, to comply with Local Rule 182(d), the attorney must conform to the
27
requirements of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Id. California Rule of
28
Professional Conduct 3-700 provides several grounds upon which an attorney may seek to
1
1
withdraw, including where “[t]he client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the
2
employment,” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(5), and where the client’s conduct has “render[ed]
3
it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively,” id.
4
3-700(C)(1)(d).
5
The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within the court’s discretion.
6
McNally v. Eye Dog Found. for the Blind, Inc., No. 09-01184, 2011 WL 1087117, at *1 (E.D.
7
Cal. Mar. 24, 2011) (citation omitted). District courts in this circuit have considered several
8
factors when evaluating a motion to withdraw, including the reason for withdrawal, prejudice to
9
the client, prejudice to the other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and possible
10
delay. See Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 09-01643, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
11
Sept. 15, 2010); CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, No. 08-02999, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2
12
(E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009); Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-594, 2008 WL 410694, at *2
13
(S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008).
14
II.
DISCUSSION
15
Here, granting the motion to withdraw would leave corporate plaintiff MyEcheck
16
without counsel. “It is a longstanding rule that corporations and other incorporated associations
17
must appear in court through an attorney.” CE Res., Inc., LLC v. Magellan Group, LLC, 2009
18
WL 3367489, at *2 (9th Cir. Oct. 14, 2009) (attorney not allowed to withdraw in representation
19
of corporate client). Local Rule 183(a) confirms that a corporation or other entity may only
20
appear through an attorney. A grant of Mr. Katz’s motion in this instance would effectively place
21
the plaintiff in violation of the rules as it would no longer have counsel to represent it.
22
While Mr. Katz avers he has attempted to contact plaintiff in multiple ways on
23
multiple occasions, he has not indicated an attempt to advise plaintiff of the need to substitute
24
counsel, or an attempt to advise his client of the rules violations it would incur should he be
25
allowed to withdraw. “It is the duty of the trial court to see that the client is protected, so far as
26
possible, from the consequences of an attorney’s abandonment.” CE Res., Inc., 2009 WL
27
3367489, at *2. Accordingly, in order to protect plaintiff’s interests before this tribunal, the court
28
declines to grant Mr. Katz’s request at this time.
2
1
III.
CONCLUSION
2
3
For the reasons stated above, Mr. Katz’s motion to withdraw is DENIED without
prejudice.
4
This order resolves ECF No. 56.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
DATED: December 1, 2016.
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?