Chunghwa Telecom Global, Inc v. Medcom, LLC et al

Filing 65

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd CONDITIONALLY granting 55 , 58 Motions to Withdraw; denying as moot 63 Motion to Appear by Telephone. Defense counsel motions to withdraw granted, subject to condition that papers may continue to be served on defense counsel for forwarding purposes. Case Management Statement due by 2/7/2017. Initial Case Management Conference set for 2/14/2017 01:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, San Jose. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
CHUNGHWA TELECOM GLOBAL, INC,

12

Plaintiff,

13
v.

14

MEDCOM, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability
company; QT TALK, INC., a Nevada
Corporation; DAVID COOPER, an
individual,

15
16
17

20
21
22
23

Re: Dkt. Nos. 55, 58, 63

The law firms of Monteiro & Fishman and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP move
for permission to withdraw as counsel of record for defendants. The court has received no
objections to the motion, and briefing on this matter is closed. The motion is deemed suitable for
determination without oral argument, and the December 27, 2016 hearing is vacated.1 Civ. L.R.
71-(b). Upon consideration of the moving papers, the court conditionally grants the motions as
follows:

24
25

ORDER CONDITIONALLY
GRANTING MOTIONS TO
WITHDRAW

Defendants.

18
19

Case No. 5:13-cv-02104-HRL

“Counsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by order of Court after written
notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other parties who have

26
27
1

28

Attorney Greenberg’s request for a continuance or for leave to appear telephonically (Dkt. 63) is
denied as moot.

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Design Group v. Wang, No. C04-521 JF (RS), 2006 WL 3591206 at *4 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2006)

5

(citing Elan Transdermal Limited v. Cygnus Therapeutic Systems, 809 F. Supp. 1383, 1387 (N.D.

6

Cal.1992)). Those standards provide that an attorney may seek permission to withdraw if, among

7

other things, the client’s conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the attorney to represent the

8

client effectively or if the client breaches an agreement or obligation with respect to the payment

9

of fees. Id. (citing Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(C)(1)(d),(f)).
Both firms say that defendants have failed to pay their legal fees, despite repeated requests,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

and that, despite numerous attempts at contact, defendants have failed to communicate with

12

counsel. (Dkt. 56, Greenberg Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, 9; Dkt. 59, Fishman Decl. ¶¶ 4-6). The attorneys attest

13

that they have given plaintiff and the defendants notice that they would seek leave to withdraw

14

from representation. (Greenberg Decl. ¶¶ 7, 13-14; Fishman Decl. ¶¶ 7-8). And, the record shows

15

that defendants have discharged both firms as their counsel in this case and have expressed that

16

they no longer want either firm to represent them in this matter. (Greenberg Decl., ¶ 15 &

17

attachment; Fishman Decl. ¶ 6 and attachment). As discussed, no one has filed an opposition to

18

the requested withdrawal. Finding sufficient grounds for withdrawal, the court grants the motion,

19

subject to the condition that papers may continue to be served on defense counsel for forwarding

20

purposes, unless and until defendants appear by other counsel. Civ. L.R. 11-5(b) (“When

21

withdrawal by an attorney from an action is not accompanied by simultaneous appearance of

22

substitute counsel or agreement of the party to appear pro se, leave to withdraw may be subject to

23

the condition that papers may continue to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes, unless

24

and until the client appears by other counsel or pro se.”).
Defendants Medcom LLC and QT Talk, LLC2 are advised that they may not appear

25
26

pro se or through their corporate officers, but must retain new counsel forthwith to

27
28

2

QT Talk, LLC says that it erroneously was sued as “QT Talk, Inc.”
2

1

represent them in this lawsuit. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) (“A corporation, unincorporated

2

association, partnership or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this

3

Court”); see also Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been

4

the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts

5

only through licensed counsel”); In Re Highley, 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972) (“A corporation

6

can appear in a court proceeding only through an attorney at law”). Medcom LLC and QT Talk

7

LLC are further advised that they retain all of the obligations of a litigant, and their failure

8

to appoint an attorney may lead to an order striking their pleadings or to entry of their

9

default.

10

The case management conference is re-set for February 14, 2017, 1:30 p.m., Courtroom

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

2, Fifth Floor, United States District Court, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California. The

12

parties’ Joint Case Management Statement is due by February 7, 2017. All other related

13

deadlines set in the Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (Dkt.

14

4) are adjusted accordingly.

15
16

SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 14, 2016

17
18
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

5:13-cv-02104-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Chip Cox

[e-mail], [e-mail]

3

Helen Lee Greenberg

4

Michael Fishman

5
6

Michael Steven Romeo [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]

7

Nelson Hsieh

[e-mail], [e-mail]

8

Yen Phi Chau

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

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