Solannex, Inc. v. MiaSole, Inc.

Filing 51

ORDER GRANTING QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 46 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Claude M. Stern terminated (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

SOLANNEX, INC.,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
MIASOLE, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case Nos.: C 11-0171 PSG/12-0832PSG
ORDER GRANTING QUINN
EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP’S MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
(Re: Docket No. 46)

16
17

In this patent infringement suit, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (“Quinn”),

18

counsel to Defendant MiaSole, Inc. (“MiaSole”), moves to withdraw as counsel. Plaintiff

19

Solannex, Inc. (“Solannex”) does not oppose the motion but requests that any withdrawal be

20

subject to certain conditions. On November 13, 2012, the parties appeared for hearing. Having

21

reviewed the papers and considered the arguments of counsel,

22

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Quinn’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

23
24

Quinn seeks to withdraw as counsel to MiaSole due to non-payment of attorneys’ fees and

25

costs and a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. During the past several months, Quinn

26

has rendered certain legal services to MiaSole, including seeking discovery from Solannex,

27

responding to written discovery propounded by Solannex, conducting third-party discovery

28
1
Case Nos.: C 11-0771 PSG/C 12-0832 PSG
ORDER

1

(including multiple depositions), and engaging in settlement negotiations. MiaSole has not paid,

2

however, any of the attorneys’ fees and costs associated with these legal services. In addition,

3

Quinn represents that there has been such a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship that

4

Quinn can no longer provide effective representation to MiaSole. Quinn also notes that MiaSole

5

should not be prejudiced by its withdrawal at this juncture in the case. Quinn informed MiaSole

6

both orally and in writing that Quinn would seek to withdraw as counsel to MiaSole and from the

7
8

case.
Solannex does not object to Quinn’s withdrawal so long as withdrawal does not cause a

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

further delay in trial. After Solannex requested that MiaSole be ordered to engage new counsel

11

within fifteen days of any order granting Quinn’s motion, new counsel for MiaSole from the Mayer

12

Brown firm has entered its appearance.

13

The local rules in this district require that any attorney permitted to practice in this court be

14
familiar with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of
15
16

California. 1 These standards are contained in the California Rules of Professional Conduct. 2

17

Pursuant to such rules, an attorney may seek to withdraw if the client renders it unreasonably

18

difficult for the attorney to carry out employment effectively or if the client breaches an obligation

19

to pay expenses or fees. 3 Civ. L.R. 11-5 provides that counsel may not withdraw without a court

20

order.

21

MiaSole has failed to fully pay attorneys’ fees and costs that it has incurred thus far and

22
Quinn describes a legitimate breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Good cause therefore
23
24

exists to allow Quinn to withdraw. A further scheduling order will follow.

25
26

1

See Civ. L.R. 11-4(a).

27

2

See id. at Commentary.

28

3

California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d) and (f).
2
Case Nos.: C 11-0771 PSG/C 12-0832 PSG
ORDER

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

11/13/2012

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case Nos.: C 11-0771 PSG/C 12-0832 PSG
ORDER