Peter B, Inc. et al v. Schantz et al

Filing 185

ORDER FOLLOWING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL re (183 in 5:09-cv-00360-JW) Letter filed by Jack Ferguson. The Court finds that it lacks authority to reappoint the Mirch Law Firm to represent P laintiffs. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Mr. Fergusons Objection to Counsel Withdrawal. Further, in light of the discussions at the conference, the Court orders as follows: (1) The Court sets May 12, 2011 at 10 a.m. for a Telephonic Conference to verify that Plaintiffs have successfully retained substitute counsel. Plaintiffs were advised at the Conference that, as corporate entities, they must be represented by counsel in this Court. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b). (2) The Mirch Law Firm shall remain as counsel of record on both cases for twenty-one (21) days for the purposes of receiving and providing legal documents until there is identification of substitute counsel. After that time, the Mirch Firm will provide all legal files and documents pe rtaining to Plaintiffs to Special Master George Fisher to hold until substitute counsel is retained. (3) The Court continues to STAY both C 09-0360-JW and C 10-4454-JW until such time as Plaintiffs retain substitute counsel or upon further Order of the Court. Counsel shall immediately serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge James Ware on 4/14/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
NO. C 09-00360 JW
NO. C 10-04454 JW

Peter B, Inc., et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,
ORDER FOLLOWING FURTHER CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER
OVERRULING OBJECTION TO
WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL

v.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
Reid Schantz, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15

/
Comerica Bank, et al.,

16

Defendants.
/

17
On April 13, 2011, the Court held a Telephonic Status Conference Re. Plaintiff’s efforts to
18
retain substitute counsel. The parties and the Mirch firm were present, and Defendants were
19
represented by counsel. At the Conference, the parties discussed Mr. Ferguson’s need for additional
20
time to retain substitute counsel and Mr. Ferguson’s, principal of Plaintiffs appearing in pro se,
21
pending Objection to Counsel Withdrawal. (See Docket Item No. 183.) In his Objection, Mr.
22
Ferguson contends that as he was not represented by counsel at the March 14, 2011 Case
23
Management Conference where he consented to the withdrawal of the Mirch Law Firm, his consent
24

was in error and that the Motion to Withdraw1 should not have been granted. (Id.)

25
26
27
28

1

(See Docket Item No. 172.) On March 17, 2011, the Court granted the Mirch Firm’s
Motion to Withdraw following the March 14 Conference where Mr. Ferguson consented to the
withdrawal of Plaintiffs’ counsel. (See Docket Item No. 181.)

1

While in some exceptional cases involving in forma pauperis pro se litigants a court may

2

request counsel represent a litigant, the Ninth Circuit has clearly held that there is no absolute right

3

to counsel in civil proceedings. See Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1994).

4

Upon review, the Court finds that it lacks authority to reappoint the Mirch Law Firm to

5

represent Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Mr. Ferguson’s Objection to Counsel

6

Withdrawal. Further, in light of the discussions at the conference, the Court orders as follows:

7

(1)

The Court sets May 12, 2011 at 10 a.m. for a Telephonic Conference to verify that

8

Plaintiffs’ have successfully retained substitute counsel. Plaintiffs were advised at

9

the Conference that, as corporate entities, they must be represented by counsel in this
Court. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
(2)

The Mirch Law Firm shall remain as counsel of record on both cases for twenty-one

12

(21) days for the purposes of receiving and providing legal documents until there is

13

identification of substitute counsel. After that time, the Mirch Firm will provide all

14

legal files and documents pertaining to Plaintiffs to Special Master George Fisher to

15

hold until substitute counsel is retained.

16
17
18

(3)

The Court continues to STAY both C 09-0360-JW and C 10-4454-JW until such time
as Plaintiffs retain substitute counsel or upon further Order of the Court.

Counsel shall immediately serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiffs.

19
20

Dated: April 14, 2011
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Brian Douglas McFarlin [e-mail]
George C. Fisher [e-mail]
Kevin John Mirch [e-mail]
Liam John O’Connor [e-mail]
Marie C. Mirch [e-mail]
Reid Paul Schantz [e-mail]
Steve W. Dollar [e-mail]

3
4
5
6

Dated: April 14, 2011

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By:

/s/ JW Chambers
Elizabeth Garcia
Courtroom Deputy