Ameranth, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, Inc. et al

Filing 169

ORDER denying #138 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney: Mr. Lawton's motion is DENIED at this time. He may renew the motion after serving a copy of this Order on his client, Defendant Exit41, and filing proof of such service with the Court, along with a declaration explaining what action Defendant Exit41 has taken in securing counsel and proceeding in its defense in this case. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/19/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AMERANTH, INC.,

CASE NO. 11-CV-1810 JLS (NLS)
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER: DENYING DEFENSE
COUNSEL’S MOTION TO
WITHDRAW

vs.
13
14
15
16
17

PIZZA HUT, INC.; PIZZA HUT OF
AMERICA, INC.; DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC;
DOMINO’S PIZZA, INC.; PAPA JOHN’S
USA, INC.; OPENTABLE, INC.;
GRUBHUB, INC.; TICKETMOB, LLC;
EXIT 41, LLC; QUIKORDER, INC.;
SEAMLESS NORTH AMERICA, LLC; OWEB TECHNOLOGIES LTD,

(ECF No. 138)

18
Defendants.
19
20

On January 27, 2012, Daniel A. Lawton, counsel for Defendant Exit41, Inc., filed a motion

21

to withdraw as counsel of record (ECF No. 138), to which no party has objected. Mr. Lawton

22

provided his client a copy of this motion, and declares that his client consents to his withdrawal.

23

(Lawton Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 138-2.) Mr. Lawton does not articulate his reasons for withdrawal,

24

merely stating that several bases listed in California Rule of Court 3-700 exist here. (Id. at ¶ 2.)

25

Mr. Lawton is the sole attorney of record for Defendant Exit41. As a corporation, Exit41

26

may participate in this action only through an attorney. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506

27

U.S. 195, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a

28

corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.”) Further, Defendant
-1-

11cv1810

1

will retain all the obligations of a litigant even if not represented by counsel, and its failure to

2

appoint an attorney may lead to adverse results, such as the entry of default against it.1 Thus, the

3

Court declines to grant Mr. Lawton’s request for leave to withdraw without ensuring Defendant

4

Exit41 has as an opportunity to obtain substitute counsel, as well as notice that failure to take

5

action may result in serious legal consequences. See 7A C.J.S. Attorney & Client § 269 (2011);

6

Urethane Foam Experts, Inc. v. Latimer, 31 Cal. App. 4th 763, 406 (1995) (finding the trial court

7

erred in allowing counsel of record to withdraw without advising corporate defendant of the

8

consequences of failure to obtain new counsel).

9

Accordingly, Mr. Lawton’s motion is DENIED at this time. He may renew the motion

10

after serving a copy of this Order on his client, Defendant Exit41, and filing proof of such service

11

with the Court, along with a declaration explaining what action Defendant Exit41 has taken in

12

securing counsel and proceeding in its defense in this case.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

DATED: April 19, 2012

16

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

See, e.g., Consol. Cigar Corp. v. Monte Cristi de Tabacos, 58 F. Supp. 2d 188, 191 (S.D.N.Y.
1999) (granting default judgment against defendant corporation after the corporation had failed to
retain new counsel when previous counsel was permitted to withdraw); R. Maganlal & Co. v. M.G.
Chem. Co., Inc., 1996 WL 420234, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 1996) (granting attorney’s request to
withdraw and notifying defendant corporation that “failure to retain new counsel may result in the
entry of a default”); Dianese, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 2002 WL 1340316, at *2 (E.D. Pa. June 19, 2002)
(permitting withdrawal even though plaintiff corporation would go unrepresented, and still refusing
to allow corporation to appear without counsel); Grass Lake All Seasons Resort, Inc. v. United States,
2005 WL 3447869, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec.15, 2005) (discussing how the Court had previously granted
counsel for plaintiff corporation's request to withdraw without first requiring substitute counsel);
Carrico v. Village of Sugar Mountain, 114 F. Supp. 2d 422, 424 (W.D.N.C. 2000) (dismissing
corporate plaintiff's claims after, in a previous ruling allowing plaintiff's counsel to withdraw); Fed.
Ins. Co. v. Yusen Air & Sea Servs., 2001 WL 498412, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2001) (permitting
withdrawal even though no substitute counsel had been retained).
-2-

11cv1810