Quintal Research Group, Inc. -v- Nintendo

Filing 70

ORDER to William R. Hill, Carolyn E. Barreno, and Donahue Fitzgerald LLP to provide declaration for in camera review; setting hearing for September 11, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on August 28, 2014. (jsclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 QUINTAL RESEARCH GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. NINTENDO OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. Case No. 13-cv-00888-SBA (JSC) ORDER TO WILLIAM R. HILL, CAROLYN E. BARRENO, AND DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP TO PROVIDE DECLARATION FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW 12 13 Now pending before the Court is William R. Hill, Carolyn E. Barreno, and Donahue 14 Fitzgerald LLP’s (“Movants”) motion to withdraw as counsel in the above-captioned matter. 15 (Dkt. No. 67.) The motion is opposed by their client, Plaintiff Quintal Research Group, Inc. (Dkt. 16 No. 69.) Although Movants assert that grounds for withdrawal exist under one or more of the 17 grounds specified in the California Rules of Professional Conduct 3-700(C), Movants fail to 18 describe at all the reasons for withdrawal. The Court cannot rule on the motion until it is made 19 aware of the reason Movants are seeking to withdraw. See Aceves v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. App. 20 4th 584, 592-93 (1996) (holding that a court may not “rubber stamp” a withdrawal and that 21 counsel has a duty to describe the “general nature” of the request “as fully as possible but within 22 the confines of privilege”); see also Zhixun Samuel Sun v. Rickenbacker Collection, 2011 WL 23 1344413, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2011) (“When addressing a motion to withdraw, . . . the court 24 must consider factors such as the reason counsel seeks to withdraw, the possible prejudice caused 25 to the litigants, and the extent to which withdrawal may delay resolution of the case.”) 26 By no later than Thursday, September 4, 2014, Movants shall file a declaration, for the 27 Court’s in camera review, setting forth the general nature of the basis for the motion. Movants 28 shall also serve the in camera declaration on Plaintiff. Plaintiff need not respond to the 1 declaration. The Court sets a hearing on the motion for Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 9:30 2 a.m. 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 28, 2014 ______________________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?