Intellectual Capital Management & Servicer Inc v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al

Filing 18

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 6/18/2015 ORDERING Plaintiff's Counsel Eric Rasmussen is ORDERED to Show Cause in writing by 6/22/2015 why sanctions should not be imposed against him for failing to file an opposit ion or statement of non-opposition to the pending dismissal motions, 8 , 12 , 13 ; if a hearing is requested on the OSC, it will be held on 8/3/2015 at 9:00 AM, just prior to the status conference scheduled on that date; Motions Hearing RESCHEDULE D for 7/27/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.; Opposition or Statement of non-opposition to the rescheduled motions are required by Local Rule 230(c); the Clerk of the Court shall also serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff on xxxx W. Pico Blvd., Suite 1520, Los Angeles, CA 90035.(Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT & SERVICER, INC., a California corporation, 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ DISMISSAL MOTIONS Plaintiff, 11 12 No. 2:15-cv-00850-GEB-CKD v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, a limited liability company; AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LENDER, a subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA N.A., a National Association; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, a corporation; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM INC., a corporation; VERIPRISE PROCESSING SOLUTIONS LLC, a limited liability company; FIELD ASSET SERVICES INC., a corporation; SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES LLC, a limited liability company; MICHAEL SALZA, an individual; ALBANY SCOTT, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 23 Defendants. 24 25 Pending for decision are three dismissal motions 26 seeking to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under Federal Rule of 27 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See 28 1 ECF Nos. 8, 12, 13.) Each 1 dismissal motion is 2 Plaintiff failed to 3 opposition to each motion as required by Local Rule 230(c). 4 noticed file for an hearing opposition or on June 29, statement of 2015. non- Further, in certain Defendants’ Notice of Plaintiff’s 5 failure to oppose their 6 “ha[ve] . . . received 7 attorney of record is no longer representing the Plaintiff in 8 this action.” (Def.’s Notice, ECF No. 15.) Defendants attached as 9 an exhibit to their Notice an email from Plaintiff’s counsel, in 10 which he states: “I’m no longer representing ICM & Servicer, Inc. 11 Please direct all further mailings and notifications to their 12 agent for service of process or ICM’s address directly.” (Id. Ex. 13 A.) an motion, unofficial Defendants notice that state they [Plaintiff’s] 14 Local Rule 182(d) prescribes: 15 Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without leave of court upon noticed motion and notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared. . . . Withdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the attorney shall conform to the requirements of those Rules. The . . . duty of the attorney of record shall continue until relieved by order of the Court issued hereunder. . . . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (emphasis added). Further, the California Rules of Professional 23 Conduct 24 representation “until the [attorney] has taken reasonable steps 25 to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the 26 client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time 27 for 28 applicable laws and rules.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(A)(2). prohibit employment of an attorney other from counsel, 2 . withdrawing . . and his or complying her with 1 Here, it is unknown what efforts, if any, Plaintiff’s 2 counsel has taken to avoid prejudicing his client, especially 3 since Plaintiff is a corporation, which “may appear in . . . 4 federal court[] only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. Cal. 5 Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201- 6 202 (1993); see also E.D. Cal. R. 183 (“A corporation . . . may 7 appear 8 corporation to retain counsel may result in its complaint . . . 9 being stricken.” S. Parker Constr., Inc. v. Suntex Homes, LLC, 10 No. 2:08-CV-1439 JCM (GWF), 2010 WL 4983292, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 11 2, 2010); accord Mastodon Invs. v. CIT Grp., Inc., No. CIV S-08- 12 392 FCD KJM PS, 2008 WL 1787765, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2008) 13 (striking 14 complaint). 15 only by an attorney.”). unrepresented For the stated Further, the “[f]ailure corporate plaintiffs reasons, Plaintiff’s from of a amended counsel, Eric 16 Rasmussen, is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) in a writing to be 17 filed no later than June 22, 2015, why sanctions should not be 18 imposed 19 statement of non-opposition to the pending dismissal motions. The 20 filing 21 against him for the apparent abandonment of his client, and for 22 his failure to comply with Local Rule 182(d) if he intends to 23 seek an order authorizing his withdrawal as Plaintiff’s counsel. 24 Plaintiff’s counsel is warned that potential sanctions include a 25 monetary sanction and/or referral of this matter to the State Bar 26 of California. If a hearing is requested on the OSC, it will be 27 held on August 3, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status 28 conference scheduled on that date. against shall him also for state failing why to sanctions 3 file an should opposition not be or imposed 1 Further, Plaintiff the rescheduled for 4 file 5 rescheduled motions as required by Local Rule 230(c). 7 statement of are to hearing on July 27, 2015, commencing at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff shall or motions responded 3 opposition those not pending an motions, has 2 6 dismissal since non-opposition to the The Clerk of the Court shall also serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff at the following address1: 8 9911 W. Pico Blvd., Suite 1520 9 Los Angeles, CA 90035 10 Dated: June 18, 2015 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 Plaintiff’s counsel provided this address in the referenced email as the “best address to use” for Plaintiff. (Def.’s Notice, Ex. A.) 4

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?