Giles v. Thompson et al
Filing
76
ORDER Granting 74 Ex Parte Application to Withdraw as Counsel of Record: Attorney Thomas Francis Feerick terminated as Counsel of Record for Defendant Water Toys, Inc. only. Defense counsel shall serve a copy of this order on Water Toys, Inc. by mo st expeditious means available and file a proof of service no later than September 7, 2010. No later than September 27, 2010 Water Toys, Inc. shall file a notice of appearance identifying its new counsel, including address and telephone number. The answer filed on behalf of Water Toys, Inc. may be stricken and default entered against it if it fails timely to comply with this order. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 8/30/2010.(mjj)(jrl).
Giles v. Thompson et al
Doc. 76
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 BEN GILES, 12 13 v. 14 JUSTIN PAUL THOMPSON, et al., 15 16 17 Defendants. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 08cv439-L(RBB) ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
On August 12, 2010 counsel for Defendant Water Toys, Inc. ("Water Toys") filed an ex
18 parte application to withdraw as counsel of record for that Defendant only. Although Water 19 Toys and Plaintiff were served with the application, they did not respond. For the reasons which 20 follow, the application to withdraw is GRANTED. 21 An attorney representing a client before a tribunal may not withdraw except by leave of
22 court. Darby v. City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992); Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 23 3-700(A)(1). This court requires counsel to "comply with the standards of professional conduct 24 required of members of the State Bar of California, and decisions of any court applicable 25 thereto." Civ. Loc. R. 83.4(b). 26 Counsel maintains withdrawal is necessitated by Water Toys' failure to communicate and
27 cooperate with its counsel in the proceedings. The counsel filed an answer in this case on 28 January 16, 2009. All attempts to communicate with Water Toys since then have been
08cv439
Dockets.Justia.com
1 unsuccessful. The counsel argues these circumstances have rendered it unreasonably difficult to 2 continue to adequately represent this Defendant. While withdrawal under the circumstances of 3 this case is not mandatory, it is permissive. See Cal. R. Prof. Conduct & 3-700(C)(1)(d) 4 (unreasonably difficult for counsel to carry out his employment). Having reviewed the 5 application and the supporting declaration of counsel, the court finds good cause to GRANT the 6 application. 7 Water Toys is a corporation and therefore must be represented by counsel. See Civ.
8 Local Rule 83.3(k); D-Beam Ltd. P'ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th 9 Cir. 2004). No later than September 20, 2010 Water Toys shall file a notice of appearance 10 identifying its new counsel, including address and telephone number. 11 12 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Defense counsel's ex parte application to withdraw as counsel of record for Defendant
13 Water Toys, Inc. is GRANTED. 14 2. The Clerk of Court shall reflect on the docket that Thomas F. Feerick, Esq. is
15 terminated as counsel for Defendant Water Toys, Inc. only. 16 3. Defense counsel shall serve a copy of this order on Water Toys, Inc. by most
17 expeditious means available and file a proof of service no later than September 7, 2010. 18 4. No later than September 27, 2010 Water Toys, Inc. shall file a notice of appearance
19 identifying its new counsel, including address and telephone number. 20 5. The answer filed on behalf of Water Toys, Inc. may be stricken and default entered
21 against it if it fails timely to comply with this order. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED.
23 DATED: August 30, 2010 24 25 26 COPY TO: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge
HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL
2
08cv439
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?