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)

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