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)

Download PDF
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?