Keating et al v. Jastremski et al

Filing 473

ORDER (1) denying 471 Motion to Withdraw as counsel of record for Steve Dalton and Ardent Retirement Planning, LLC; and (2) Briefing schedule. No later than 7/13/2020, Counter-Defendants shall file either their opposition to the pending motion for default judgment or a notice of non-opposition. No later than 7/20/2020, Counterclaimant shall file a reply, if any. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 6/26/2020. (jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEREMY L. KEATING ET AL.,

12
13
14

Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN A. JASTREMSKI ET AL.,

15
16
17

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-00057-L-AGS
ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF
RECORD FOR STEVE DALTON AND
ARDENT RETIREMENT PLANNING,
LLC; AND (2) BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Defendants.
(Doc. no. 471)
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

18
19

Pending before the Court in this action alleging misappropriation of trade secrets

20

is an unopposed motion filed by counsel for Counter-Defendants Steve Dalton

21

(“Dalton”) and Ardent Retirement Planning, LLC (“Ardent”) seeking withdrawal from

22

representation. (Doc. no. 471). Two counsel of record are reflected on the docket for

23

Dalton and Ardent. Robert Bursky, an out-of-state attorney who was permitted to

24

appear pro hac vice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3.c.4 (doc. nos. 384, 385), and

25

Assly Sayyar, who was designated by Mr. Bursky as his local counsel pursuant to Civil

26

Local Rules 83.3.c.4 and 5 (doc. no. 384). According to the declaration of counsel, the

27

clients consent to the withdrawal. Counterclaimant The Retirement Group, LLC

28
1

1

(“TRG”) filed a notice of non-opposition. (Doc. no. 472). Nevertheless, for the

2

reasons which follow, the motion is denied.

3

Most recently, the Court considered TRG’s and Defendant John A. Jastremski’s

4

(“Jastremski”) motion for terminating sanctions for spoliation of evidence against

5

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Jeremy Keating, Richard P. Gigliotti and Alexander J.

6

Mele (collectively, “the Keating Group”), as well as Counter-Defendants Securities

7

America, Inc. ("SAI"), Lloyd J. Silvers (“Silvers”), Dalton and Ardent (Silvers, Dalton

8

and Ardent are sometimes collectively referred to as the “Ardent Group”).1 The Court

9

appointed Hon. Ronald S. Prager (Ret.) as the Special Master pursuant to Rule 53 of

10

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to prepare a report and recommendation. The

11

Special Master held a six-day evidentiary hearing. After considering voluminous

12

briefing, evidence, and extensive argument, the Special Master concluded that

13

members of the Ardent Group intentionally and maliciously destroyed evidence. He

14

recommended granting motion for terminating sanctions and striking the Ardent

15

Group’s answers. On TRG’s motion, which was vigorously opposed by the Ardent

16

Group, this Court adopted the Special Master’s recommendation. (See doc. no. 467.)

17

Accordingly, the Ardent Group’s answers were stricken, and default was entered

18

against them. (Doc. nos. 467, 468.) Furthermore, the Court granted TRG’s motion,

19

filed in anticipation of a motion for default judgment, to amend its counterclaim to

20

more accurately allege the amount of damages sought against the Ardent Group

21

members. (Doc. no. 466.)

22

On May 8, 2020, TRG filed its motion for default judgment. (Doc. no. 470.) A

23

week later and before any opposition was due, Dalton’s and Ardent’s counsel filed the

24

instant motion to withdraw. (Doc. no. 471.) No opposition to the motion for default

25

judgment has been filed to date.

26
27
28

1

A settlement reached in April 2019 disposed of all claims between the Keating
Group, SAI and Jastremski. (See doc. no. 436 (Klein Decl.) at 2; see also docs. no.
402, 403, 407, 408.) Accordingly, at the relevant time, TRG was the only remaining
moving party, and the Ardent Group members were the only remaining opposing
parties.
2

1

Ms. Sayyar wishes to withdraw because Dalton and Ardent have failed to pay

2

her bills. (Doc. no. 471-2 (“Sayyar Decl.”) at 2-3.) After she had brought this to their

3

attention and after this Court adopted the Special Master’s Report and

4

Recommendation, “Dalton and Ardent knowingly and freely assented to termination of

5

the attorney client relationship.” (Id. at 2.) Mr. Bursky wishes to withdraw because

6

upon Ms. Sayyar’s withdrawal he will no longer have a local counsel, and he was

7

informed by Dalton and Ardent that they did not intend to retain local counsel to

8

replace Ms. Sayyar. (Doc. no. 471-3 (“Bursky Decl.”) at 2.)

9
10

An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court. Darby v.
City of Torrance, 810 F.Supp. 275, 276 (C.D.Cal.1992).2

11

In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: (1) the
reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may
cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the
administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will
delay the resolution of the case.

12
13
14
15
16

Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., 2008 WL 410694 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008)

17

(Hayes, J.).

18

With regard to the first factor, this District requires counsel to comply with the

19

standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California,

20

Civ. Loc. Rule 83.4(b), which allow for withdrawal from representation under certain

21

conditions, Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b). As relevant here, an attorney may withdraw

22

if
(5)

23
24
25
26
27
28

the client breaches a material term of an agreement with . . . the
lawyer relating to the representation, and the lawyer has given the
client a reasonable warning after the breach that the lawyer will
withdraw unless the client fulfills the agreement or performs the
obligation; [or]

2

Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, citations, and footnotes are
omitted throughout.
3

1

(6)

2

the client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the
representation.

3

Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b)(5) – (6). However, “[a] lawyer shall not terminate a

4

representation until the lawyer has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably

5

foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client . . ." Id. Rule 1.16(d).

6

The counsel do not indicate how they have complied with this requirement.

7

Instead, they contend “[t]here is little to no prejudice that will be caused by withdrawal

8

as the answers filed by Dalton and Ardent have been stricken and default entered

9

against them.” (Doc. no. 471-1 at 3.) The Court is not persuaded.

10

Although, upon entry of default all well-pleaded facts in the complaint are taken

11

as true, the allegations relating to the amount of damages are not. See TeleVideo Sys.,

12

Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). A hearing may be required.

13

See Fed. R. Civ. proc. 55(b). In its motion, TRG requests $745,982.42 in

14

disgorgement damages against Dalton, statutory interest at a rate of 7%, punitive

15

damages for twice the amount of disgorgement damages, and injunctive relief. (Doc.

16

no. 470-1 (“TRG Mot. for Default J.”) at 17-21, 23.) The requested judgment would

17

make Ardent jointly and severally liable. (Id. at 21.) Finally, TRG is seeking

18

$1,889,869.92 in attorneys’ fees against the members of the Ardent Group for willful

19

and malicious theft of trade secrets. (Id. at 21-23.) Complex legal issues are raised by

20

the request for relief against Ardent, because, according to TRG, “Ardent is out of

21

business.” (Id. at 21.) The counsel do not say whether Dalton and Ardent intend to

22

contest the relief requested in TRG’s motion.

23
24

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the clients would be prejudiced by the
withdrawal.3 Furthermore, proceedings in this case would be unduly difficult without

25
26
27
28

3

While Dalton could proceed pro se, Ardent cannot appear without
representation. Civ. Loc. Rule 83.3.j; see also United States v. High Country
Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993).
4

1

representation and withdrawal may delay the resolution of this case. Accordingly, it is

2

ordered as follows:

3
4
5
6

1.

The motion of Assly Sayyar and Robert Bursky to withdraw as counsel

for Counter-Defendants Steve Dalton and Ardent Retirement Planning, LLC is denied.
2.

No later than July 13, 2020, Counter-Defendants shall file either their

opposition to the pending motion for default judgment or a notice of non-opposition.

7

3.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

No later than July 20, 2020, Counterclaimant shall file a reply, if any.

9
10

Dated: June 26, 2020

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5