Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, Inc.

Filing 218

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 208 MOTION TO WITHDRAW. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2013)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 BRILLIANT INSTRUMENTS, INC., 5 Plaintiff, 6 No. C 09-5517 CW ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW (Docket No. 208) v. 7 GUIDETECH, LLC, 8 Defendant. ________________________________/ 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 On June 13, 2013, attorneys Thomas W. Lathram, Arthur J. 11 Behiel, Mark P. Guidotti, and Silicon Edge Law Group LLP (Movants) 12 moved to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Brilliant Instruments, 13 Inc. 14 a declaration consenting to Movants’ withdrawal. 15 Docket No. 208. Shalom Kattan, Plaintiff’s president, filed Docket No. 210. On June 21, 2013, the Court took the motion under submission 16 on the papers and stated that it would be resolved after a 17 settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge had taken place. 18 Docket No. 213, 1. 19 consented to the withdrawal and thus, the motion is likely to be 20 granted. 21 Plaintiff cannot represent itself to prosecute this case” and 22 advised it to begin seeking replacement counsel at that time. 23 The Court also warned Plaintiff that, if the case did not settle 24 and the motion to withdraw were granted, it must appear at the 25 upcoming case management conference--now scheduled for September 26 4, 2013--with new counsel or its case would be dismissed for 27 28 Id. The Court also noted that Plaintiff had The Court warned Plaintiff, “As a corporation, Id. 1 failure to prosecute and default would be entered against it on 2 Defendant Guidetech LLC’s counterclaims.1 3 On July 30, 2013, the Magistrate Judge held a settlement 4 conference with the parties. 5 reach a settlement. 6 Docket No. 217. The parties did not Id. Having considered the papers filed by Movants, and with the 7 consent of Plaintiff after having been advised of the consequences 8 of its counsel’s withdrawal, the Court GRANTS Movants’ motion to 9 withdraw (Docket No. 208). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 withdrawal is subject to the condition that papers may continue to 11 be served on Movants for forwarding purposes to Plaintiff, unless 12 and until Plaintiff appears through other counsel.2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Mr. Kattan has filed a declaration attesting that Plaintiff’s counsel also has advised him that “Brilliant, as a corporation, must be represented by counsel in this action and that failure to retain counsel could result in dismissal of the action and entry of default judgment against Brilliant.” Kattan Decl. ¶ 6, Docket No. 210. 2 28 Mr. Kattan has acknowledged this condition of withdrawal on behalf of Plaintiff. Kattan Decl. ¶ 5. 2 1 As the Court noted in the June 21, 2013 order, because it is 2 a corporation, Plaintiff cannot represent itself in this matter. 3 Thus, if it wishes to prosecute and defend this case, it must 4 locate new counsel to represent it and have counsel make an 5 appearance in this case prior to or at the upcoming case 6 management conference. 7 not find counsel to represent it and to make an appearance in this 8 case within the time permitted, the Court will dismiss its claims 9 for failure to prosecute and enter default against it on Plaintiff is warned again that, if it does United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Defendant’s counterclaims. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 Dated: 8/7/2013 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 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?