Magic Leap, Inc. v. Bradski et al

Filing 182

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW. Hearing set for 12/14/2016 01:00 PM. Computerlaw Group response due by 11/30/2016. Bradski, Kaehler, and Robotics Actual may respond by 12/9/16. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 11/21/2016. (nclc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
MAGIC LEAP, INC.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff,

12

Case Nos. 16-cv-02852 NC;
16-cv-3235 NC

v.

13

GARY BRADSKI, et al.,

14

Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Dkt. Nos. 164, 34

15
16

In the related Magic Leap cases, attorneys Jack Russo and Christopher Sargent from

17

the Computerlaw Group move to withdraw their representation of Bradski, Kaehler, and

18

Robotics Actual. Counsel argues that an actual conflict between the interests of defendants

19

has arisen, necessitating Computerlaw Group’s withdrawal.

20

Under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), “Counsel may not

21

withdraw from an action until relieved by order of Court after written notice has been

22

given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other parties who have appeared in the

23

case.” In addition, Civil Local Rule 11-4(a)(1) requires complaince with the standard of

24

professional conduct required of members of the California State Bar. Under California

25

rules, counsel “shall not withdraw from employment until the [attorney] has taken

26

reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client”

27

including giving the client notice and “allowing time for employment of other counsel.”

28

California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d). Additionally, as counsel notes,
Case No.16-cv-02852-NC

1

courts consider (1) the reasons counsel seeks to withdraw; (2) the possible prejudice that

2

withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm that withdrawal might cause to the

3

administration of justice; and (4) the extent to which withdrawal will delay resolution of

4

the case. Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, Case No. 09-cv-01643 SBA, 2010 WL

5

3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010).

6

Here, the Court has a number of concerns about the motion to withdraw,

7

necessitating further briefing and a continuation of the upcoming hearing dates in both

8

cases. In particular, Computerlaw Group has filed six motions, plus several administrative

9

motions to seal, all of which are currently pending with the Court. In addition, this case
has been referred for ongoing settlement discussions with Magistrate Judge Kim. The

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Court and opposing counsel have spent significant resources and time addressing the

12

motions filed and attempting to resolve this dispute with Computerlaw Group as counsel.

13

Finally, Bradski has filed a notice of settlement with Magic Leap, but signed the settlement

14

in pro se.

15

Therefore, with the information provided, the Court currently believes that the

16

possibility of prejudice is high, the withdrawal will cause a burden on the administration of

17

justice, and withdrawal will likely delay resolution of this case.

18

Thus, the Court orders as follows:

19

1. Computerlaw Group must provide a copy of this order to Bradski, Kaehler, and

20
21

Robotics Actual.
2. Computerlaw Group must further identify the basis for withdrawal and address

22

the prejudice to the clients and the administration of justice by November 30,

23

2016.

24

3. Bradski, Kaehler, and Robotics Actual may respond to the motion to withdraw

25

by December 9, 2016, identifying whether they (1) agree with or oppose the

26

motion and (2) have obtained other counsel or need time to do so.

27

4. The Court VACATES the November 30, 2016, hearings and status conference.

28

5. The Court sets a hearing on the motion to withdraw only on December 14, 2016,
Case No. 16-cv-02852 NC

2

1

at 1:00 p.m. in San Jose, Courtroom 7. Computerlaw Group counsel must

2

appear in person. Bradski, Kaehler, and Robotics Actual must also participate,

3

but may do so telephonically. Magic Leap’s counsel must also be present,

4

although the Court expects to conduct some of the hearing ex parte.

5
6

6. The Court will address the stipulations to dismiss and the pending motions after
ruling on the motion to withdraw.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: November 21, 2016

12

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 16-cv-02852 NC

3