Think Computer Corp v. Venchiarutti et al

Filing 46

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 45 Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 2/27/2013. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2013)

1
2

*E-FILED: February 27, 2013*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

THINK COMPUTER CORPORATION,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

No. C11-05496 HRL

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW

v.
ROBERT VENCHIARUTTI, in his official
capacity as Deputy Commissioner of the
California Department of Financial Institutions;
WILLIAM HARAF, in his official capacity as
commissioner of the California Department of
Financial Institutions; TRACI STEVENS, in her
official capacity as Acting Secretary of the
California Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency; JACOB A. APPELSMITH, in his
official capacity as Senior Advisor to the
Governor of the State of California; EDMUND
G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of California; and
KAMALA HARRIS, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of California,

[Re: Docket No. 45]

Defendants.
/

23
24

Attorney Michael Brooks Carroll moves for leave to withdraw as plaintiff Think

25

Computer Corporation’s co-counsel of record. The court’s docket indicates that Carroll is

26

plaintiff’s California counsel. Plaintiff is also represented by a Massachusetts attorney who has

27

been admitted pro hac vice in this action. The court has received no objections to the request,

28

and plaintiff stipulates to the withdrawal. Nevertheless, for the reasons stated below, the

1
2

request is denied.
“Counsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by order of Court after written

3

notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other parties who have

4

appeared in the case.” CIV. L.R. 11-5(a). “In the Northern District of California, the conduct of

5

counsel is governed by the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State

6

Bar of California, including the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California.”

7

Hill Design Group v. Wang, No. C04-521 JF (RS), 2006 WL 3591206 at *4 (N.D. Cal., Dec.

8

11, 2006) (citing Elan Transdermal Limited v. Cygnus Therapeutic Systems, 809 F. Supp. 1383,

9

1387 (N.D. Cal.1992)). Although no reason is given for Carroll’s request to withdraw, plaintiff
consents to it. And, the California standards of professional conduct provide that an attorney

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

may seek permission to withdraw if, among other things, the client knowingly and freely

12

assents to termination of the employment. Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-

13

700(C)(5).

14

Even so, plaintiff can only proceed through an attorney. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) (“A

15

corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only

16

through a member of the bar of this Court”); see also Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506

17

U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a

18

corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel”); In Re Highley,

19

459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972) (“A corporation can appear in a court proceeding only

20

through an attorney at law”). And, plaintiff’s Massachusetts counsel, appearing here on a pro

21

hac vice basis, must have co-counsel who is a member of the bar of this court in good standing

22

and who maintains an office within the State of California. CIV. L.R. 11-3(a)(3).

23

Accordingly, the request to withdraw is denied, without prejudice to renew it upon

24

plaintiff’s retention of other appropriate California counsel who enters an appearance on his

25

behalf in this matter.

26
27

SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2013
HOWARD R. LLOYD

28

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

1

5:11-cv-05496-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Marvin Nathan Cable
[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail],

3
Michael Brooks Carroll

[e-mail]

Peter Keller Southworth

[e-mail], [e-mail]

4
5
Ryan Marcroft

[e-mail], [e-mail]

6
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
3