Gianni Versace, S.p.A. et al v. Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo SRL et al

Filing 284

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 272 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GIANNI VERSACE, S.P.A., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

v.

Case No. 16-cv-03617-HSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW
Re: Dkt. No. 272

VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO
SPORTIVO SRL, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Defendants in this action include Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo S.R.L. and

14

Theofanis Papadas (collectively, “VAS”). On December 21, 2018, VAS’s counsel—attorneys

15

Gerard F. Dunne, William Dunnegan, Nicholas G. Karambelas, and Suizi Lin—filed a motion to

16

withdraw as counsel for VAS on the ground that they “have not been paid for their services, and

17

that there is no reasonable expectation that they will be paid.” Dkt. No. 272 at 3. Counsel gave

18

more than five months’ notice to VAS of their intent to withdraw. Id. Mr. Papadas opposed the

19

motion, but therein admitted to unpaid balances. See Dkt. No. 278. Plaintiffs Gianni Versace,

20

S.p.A. and Versace USA, Inc. (collectively, “Versace”) do not oppose this motion. Dkt. No. 279.

21

On January 31, 2019, the Court held a hearing, which was attended by Attorneys

22

Dunnegan and Lin for VAS, and Attorney Rosemarie Ring for Versace. At the Court’s direction,

23

Mr. Papadas appeared telephonically, both in his individual capacity and as a client representative

24

for Defendant Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo S.R.L. See Dkt. Nos. 276 (ordering Mr.

25

Papadas’s appearance), 283 (granting Mr. Papadas’s request to appear telephonically). At the

26

hearing, the Court reviewed in camera a report produced by Mr. Dunnegan that included defense

27

counsels’ unpaid balances giving rise to the present motion. Based on the relevant legal authority,

28

the papers, and the representations made at the hearing, the Court now GRANTS the motion to

withdraw as counsel.

1
2

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
In this District, “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by order of

3
4

Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other

5

parties who have appeared in the case.” Civil L.R. 11-5(a). Moreover, “[w]hen withdrawal by an

6

attorney from an action is not accompanied by simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or

7

agreement of the party to appear pro se, leave to withdraw may be subject to the condition that

8

papers may continue to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes, unless and until the client

9

appears by other counsel or pro se.” Civil L.R. 11-5(b).
Withdrawal is also governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct. See j2

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Glob. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Blue Jay, Inc., No. C 08-4254 PJH, 2009 WL 464768, at *1 (N.D. Cal.

12

Feb. 24, 2009)); see also Civil L.R. 11-4(a)(1) (requiring compliance with the California Rules of

13

Professional Conduct). Under these rules, permissive withdrawal may only be granted by leave of

14

the Court. CA ST RPC, Rule 3-700(A)(1). The professional rules provide for permissive

15

withdrawal on various grounds, including when “[t]he client . . . breaches an agreement or

16

obligation to the member as to expenses or fees[,]” or when “[t]he member believes in good faith

17

. . . that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.” Id., Rule 3-

18

700(C)(1), (6). However, an attorney may not withdraw before he or she “has taken reasonable

19

steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due

20

notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, complying with rule 3-

21

700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules.” Id., Rule 3-700(A)(2); see also id., Rule

22

3-700(D) (regarding the refund of fees and the release of property and papers).

23

Finally, courts assessing withdrawal balance the equities, considering such factors as why

24

counsel seeks to withdraw and whether permitting withdrawal may prejudice other litigants, harm

25

the administration of justice, or delay the case’s resolution. Robinson v. Delgado, No. CV 02-

26

1538 NJV, 2010 WL 3259384, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2010) (citing cases).

27

//

28

//
2

1

II.

DISCUSSION
Local Civil Rule 11-5(a) is satisfied because the filing of the motion over a month ago

2

gave all parties reasonable advance notice of withdrawal, and because defense counsel gave notice

4

to their client. See Dkt. No. 272 at 3. The filing of the motion was also permitted by the

5

California Rules of Professional Conduct. Based upon the information disclosed during the in

6

camera portion of the hearing, the Court is persuaded that defense counsel filed the motion with a

7

good faith belief that there is good cause for withdrawal. CA ST RPC, Rule 3-700(C)(6).

8

Balancing the equities, the Court finds that permitting withdrawal is just, while imposing certain

9

conditions (described below) will minimize delay and prejudice. See Robinson, 2010 WL

10

3259384, at *2 (discussing equities). In the exercise of its discretion, the Court finds that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

withdrawal is warranted. See Gong, 2008 WL 160964, at *1.
If necessary, Mr. Papadas, as an individual, may appear pro se in federal court. However,

12
13

Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo S.R.L., as a business entity, may appear in federal court

14

only through counsel. See U.S. v. High Country Broad. Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir.

15

1993); see also N.D. Cal. L.R. 3-9(b). Consequently, Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo

16

S.R.L. must obtain new counsel within 60 days. During this period, the Court directs defense

17

counsel to accept service of papers for forwarding to both Mr. Papadas and Versace 19.69

18

Abbigliamento Sportivo S.R.L. See Civil L.R. 11-5(b).
If Mr. Papadas in his individual capacity is unable to obtain counsel within 60 days, he will

19
20

proceed in this action pro se. In that event, Mr. Papadas must provide the Court with his contact

21

information, so that he may be served as an individual going forward. If Versace 19.69

22

Abbigliamento Sportivo S.R.L. is unable to obtain counsel within 60 days, the Court will be

23

inclined to allow Plaintiffs’ counsel to seek entry of default and a default judgment. See Baeza v.

24

Assisted Credit Servs., Inc., No. 8:15-cv-01451-ODW (JCG), 2016 WL 3912016, at *2–4 (C.D.

25

Cal. July 19, 2016); see also Emp. Painters’ Trust v. Ethan Enters., Inc., 480 F.3d 993, 998 (9th

26

Cir. 2007) (affirming entry of a default judgment where the corporate defendant had failed to

27

obtain substitute counsel); High Country, 3 F.3d at 1245 (same).

28

//
3

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the motion to withdraw as counsel.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: 2/1/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District 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
4