MRC Golf, Inc. v. Hippo Golf Company, Inc.

Filing 30

ORDER Granting 28 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney: Attorney Thomas L. Kautz; Callie A Bjurstrom and Peter K Hahn terminated. The Clerk of Court shall reflect on the docket that Law Offices of Gray Robinson P.A. and Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP are terminated as counsel for Defendant. Defense counsel shall serve a copy of this order on Defendant by most expeditious means available and file a proof of service no later than November 9, 2009. No later than December 4, 2009 Defendant shall file a notice of appearance. Defendants answer may be stricken, default entered against it, and its counterclaims may be dismissed if it fails timely to comply with this order. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 11/5/2009. (mjj) (jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MRC GOLF, INC., 12 13 v. 14 HIPPO GOLF COMPANY, INC., 15 16 17 Defendant. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 09cv327-L(RBB) ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On October 27, 2009 counsel for Defendant Hippo Golf Company, Inc. filed an ex parte

18 application to withdraw as counsel of record. Although Defendant and Plaintiff were served 19 with the application, they did not respond. For the reasons which follow, the application to 20 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 Defendant's failure to meet its

27 obligation to communicate and cooperate with its counsel in the proceedings, and to meet its 28
09cv327

1 financial obligations.1 The counsel argue these circumstances have rendered it impossible to 2 continue to adequately represent Defendant. 3 Withdrawal is permissible under these circumstances. See Cal. R. Prof. Conduct & 3-

4 700(C)(1)(d) (unreasonably difficult for counsel to carry out his employment) & 3-700(C)(1)(f) 5 (failure to pay fees). Although the rules do not mandate withdrawal, they make it permissive. 6 An attorney may not withdraw until he or she "has taken reasonable steps to avoid

7 reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client . . .." Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 38 100(A)(2). Counsel have represented to the court that prior to requesting withdrawal, they had 9 made all required efforts to protect Defendant from prejudice and would continue to protect it 10 from prejudice pending an order permitting withdrawal. Having reviewed the application and 11 the supporting declarations of counsel, the court finds good cause to grant the application. 12 Defendant is a corporation and therefore must be represented by counsel. See Civ. Local

13 Rule 83.3(k); D-Beam Ltd. P'ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 14 2004). No later than December 4, 2009 Defendant shall file a notice of appearance identifying 15 its new counsel, including address and telephone number. 16 17 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Defense counsel's ex parte application to withdraw as counsel of record is

18 GRANTED. 19 2. The Clerk of Court shall reflect on the docket that Law Offices of Gray Robinson P.A.

20 and Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP are terminated as counsel for Defendant. 21 3. Defense counsel shall serve a copy of this order on Defendant by most expeditious

22 means available and file a proof of service no later than November 9, 2009. 23 4. No later than December 4, 2009 Defendant shall file a notice of appearance

24 identifying its new counsel, including address and telephone number. 25 26 Under the State Bar of California Rules of Professional Conduct, attorneys are bound to preserve client confidences when seeking withdrawal, if disclosing them would 27 prejudice the client or violate the counsel's duty of confidentiality. See Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 328 700(A)(2). In light of these limitations, counsel often is not able to discuss in detail the reasons for withdrawal.
2
09cv327
1

1

5. Defendant's answer may be stricken, default entered against it, and its counterclaims

2 may be dismissed if it fails timely to comply with this order. 3 4 5 DATED: November 5, 2009 6 7 8 COPY TO: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge IT IS SO ORDERED.

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3
09cv327