Golden Eye Media USA, Inc. v. Trolley Bags UK Ltd et al

Filing 120

ORDER on 100 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record. The Court DENIES the Motion as follows: 1. Defendant's counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record is DENIED without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion in accordance with Local Rules and stating the grounds discussed above. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 1/5/2021. (mme)(jrd)

Case 3:18-cv-02109-BEN-LL Document 120 Filed 01/06/21 PageID.4358 Page 1 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

GOLDEN EYE MEDIA USA, INC., a
California corporation,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

v.
TROLLEY BAGS UK LTD, a
corporation of the United Kingdom; and
BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL,
INC., a Florida corporation,
Defendants.

18
19
20
21

TROLLEY BAGS UK LTD, a
corporation of the United Kingdom; and
BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL,
INC., a Florida corporation,
Counterclaimants,

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
GOLDEN EYE MEDIA USA, INC., a
California corporation; FARZAN
DEHMOUBED, an individual; and
JENNIFER DUVALL, an individual,
Counterdefendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02109-BEN-LL
ORDER ON MOTION TO BE
RELIEVED AS COUNSEL OF
RECORD
[ECF No. 100]

-13:18-cv-02109-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-02109-BEN-LL Document 120 Filed 01/06/21 PageID.4359 Page 2 of 7

1

I.

INTRODUCTION

2

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant GOLDEN EYE MEDIA USA, INC., a California

3

corporation (“Plaintiff”) brings this action seeking a declaratory judgment of non-

4

infringement against Defendants/Counterclaimants TROLLEY BAGS UK LTD, a

5

corporation

6

INTERNATIONAL,

7

“Defendants”). ECF No. 1.

of

the

United
INC.,

Kingdom
a

(“Trolley

Florida

corporation

Bags”);

and

BERGHOFF

(“Berghoff”)

(collectively,

8

Before the Court is the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record submitted by

9

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (“Sheppard Mullin”) and Honigman LLP

10

(“Honigman”) (collectively, “Counsel”), current counsel of record for Berghoff (the

11

“Motion”). ECF No. 100.

12

The motion was submitted on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil

13

Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and Rule 78(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No.

14

114. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable

15

law, the Court DENIES the Motion.

16

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

17

An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, permitting the

18

party to either appear on the party’s own behalf or substitute other counsel in as counsel of

19

record. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.3(f)(1); see also P.I.C. Int’l, Inc. v. Gooper Hermetic, Ltd.,

20

No. 3:19-CV-00734-BEN-LL, 2020 WL 2992194, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jun. 4, 2020). Under

21

the Local Rules, “[o]nly natural persons representing their individual interests in propria

22

persona may appear in court without representation by an attorney permitted to practice

23

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.3(k). “All other parties, including

24
25
26
27
28

corporations, partnerships and other legal entities, may appear in court only through an
attorney permitted to practice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3.” Id.; see also Laskowitz
v. Shellenberger, 107 F. Supp. 397, 398 (S.D. Cal. 1952) (“Since a corporation cannot
practice law, and can only act through the agency of natural persons, it follows that it can
appear in court on its own behalf only through a licensed attorney.”). Thus, courts may not
-23:18-cv-02109-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-02109-BEN-LL Document 120 Filed 01/06/21 PageID.4360 Page 3 of 7

1

grant a motion to withdraw filed by counsel for a corporate entity unless the attorney and/or

2

corporate entity have arranged for qualified replacement counsel to substitute in as counsel

3

of record. See, e.g., id.

4

California law governs issues of ethics and professional responsibility in federal

5

courts. See, e.g., Radcliffe v. Hernandez, 818 F.3d 537, 541 (9th Cir. 2016) (“California

6

law

7

generally RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS § 1 cmt.

8

b (2000) (“Federal district courts generally have adopted the lawyer code of the jurisdiction

9

in which the court sits, and all federal courts exercise the power to regulate lawyers

10

appearing before them.”); but see Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington Cty., Oregon

11

v. Jelco, Inc., 646 F.2d 1339, 1342 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981) (“We express no opinion on the law

12

to apply where the district court has not designated the applicable rules of professional

13

responsibility (e.g., state law, the Model Code of Professional Responsibility, or a federal

14

common law of professional responsibility).”). Under Rule 1.16 of California’s Rules of

15

Professional Conduct, effective June 1, 2020, subdivision (a) governs mandatory

16

withdrawal while subdivision (b) governs permissive withdrawal. In ruling on a motion to

17

withdraw, “[i]t is the duty of the trial court to see that the client is protected, so far as

18

possible, from the consequences of an attorney’s abandonment.” CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan

19

Group, LLC, No. 08-cv-02999-MCE-KJM, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14,

20

2009) (denying motion to withdraw where corporation would be left unrepresented by

21

counsel) (citations omitted).

22

III.

governs

questions

of

conflicts

of

interest

and

disqualification”);

see

DISCUSSION

23

Rule 1.16(b) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, governing permissive

24

withdrawal, permits an attorney to withdraw from representation of a client for several

25

enumerated grounds. In the present case, Counsel asks to be permitted to withdraw from

26

representation “because there are multiple grounds for withdrawal under Rule 1.16(b).”

27

ECF No. 100-1 at 2:9-11. Counsel claims that they “have taken reasonable steps to

28

prevent any potential prejudice to BergHOFF under Rule 1.16(d) of the California Rules
-33:18-cv-02109-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-02109-BEN-LL Document 120 Filed 01/06/21 PageID.4361 Page 4 of 7

1

of Professional Conduct, including providing reasonable notice to BergHOFF.” Id. at

2

2:11-15. While there is no declaration submitted concurrently with the Motion, Counsel

3

states that “[a] copy of the Motion and this Brief in Support have been served on

4

BergHOFF and its regular outside counsel via email and U.S. Mail, as well as all counsel

5

of record using the Court’s ECF system.” Id. at 2:16-18. Counsel asks that their client,

6

Berghoff, “be granted 14 days to engage new counsel.” Id. at 2:18-19.

7

The Court denies the Motion because (1) Counsel failed to submit a declaration in

8

support of their Motion; (2) the Court may not permit counsel to withdraw leaving a

9

corporate entity defendant unable to defend itself; and (3) Counsel failed to set forth

10
11

adequate grounds for this Court to grant the Motion.
A.
Counsel Failed to Submit the Declaration Required by the Local Rules.

12

A motion to withdraw must (1) be served on the adverse party and moving

13

attorney’s client and (2) include a declaration regarding service of the motion on those

14

parties. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.3(f)(3). “Failure to . . . file the required declaration of service

15

will result in a denial of the motion.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.3(f)(3)(b). In the present case,

16

Counsel filed a “Certificate of Service” stating that the Motion was electronically served

17

via the Court’s ECF system as well as via regular U.S. Mail and e-mail to the client and

18

its outside counsel. ECF No. 100-1 at 4. This document, however, although signed by

19

John Burns, was not signed under penalty of perjury, and as such, does not qualify as a

20

“declaration.” See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2) (providing that whenever a law of the United

21

States or rule requires a matter to be supported by sworn declaration in writing, that matter

22

may be proved “by the unsworn declaration . . . in writing of such person which is

23

subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated,” so long as it substantially

24

follows the form proscribed by the statute). As such, the Motion fails to meet the

25

requirements of Local Rule 83.3(f)(3).

26

///

27

///

28

///
-43:18-cv-02109-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-02109-BEN-LL Document 120 Filed 01/06/21 PageID.4362 Page 5 of 7

2

Courts May Not Allow Permissive Withdrawal for a Corporate Entity
Where There is No Other Counsel Ready to Substitute in as Counsel of
Record.

3

Under the Local Rules, “[o]nly natural persons representing their individual

4

interests in propria persona may appear in court without representation by an attorney

5

permitted to practice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.3(k). “All

6

other parties, including corporations, partnerships and other legal entities, may appear in

7

court only through an attorney permitted to practice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3.”

8

S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.3(k); see also Laskowitz, 107 F. Supp. at 398. Thus, courts may not

9

grant a motion to withdraw filed by counsel for a corporate entity unless the attorney

10

and/or corporate entity have arranged for qualified replacement counsel to substitute in as

11

counsel of record. See, e.g., id. Here, the Court denies the Motion as granting the Motion

12

would leave a corporate entity unrepresented, and Counsel has failed to set forth an

13

adequate plan for replacement counsel to appear on Berghoff’s behalf.
C.
Counsel Failed to Set Forth Adequate Grounds for Granting the
Motion, Especially in Light of Potential Prejudice.

1

14
15

B.

16

Under Rule 1.16, subdivision (b) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct,

17

counsel may withdraw from representing a client where (1) “a continuation of the

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

representation is likely to result in a violation of these rules or the State Bar Act”; (2) the
attorney “believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the
tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal”; and/or (3) the client
(a) “insists upon presenting a claim or defense in litigation . . . that is not warranted under
existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension,
modification, or reversal of existing law,” (b) “either seeks to pursue a criminal or
fraudulent course of conduct or has used the lawyer’s services to advance a course of
conduct that the lawyer reasonably believes was a crime or fraud,” (c) “insists that the
lawyer pursue a course of conduct that is criminal or fraudulent,” (d) “by other conduct
renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively,”
(e) “breaches a material term of an agreement with, or obligation, to the lawyer relating
-53:18-cv-02109-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-02109-BEN-LL Document 120 Filed 01/06/21 PageID.4363 Page 6 of 7

1

to the representation, and the lawyer has given the client a reasonable warning after the

2

breach that the lawyer will withdraw unless the client fulfills the agreement or performs

3

the obligation,” or (f) “knowingly and freely assents to termination of the representation.”

4

Cal. R. Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.16(b). Subdivision (d) requires that “[a] lawyer shall not

5

terminate a representation until the lawyer has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably

6

foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, such as giving the client sufficient notice

7

to permit the client to retain other counsel.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.16(d).

8

“In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons why

9

withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the

10

harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; [and] (4) the degree to

11

which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Garrett v. Ruiz, No. 11-cv-

12

02540-IEG, 2013 WL 163420, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013); see also Bernstein v. City

13

of Los Angeles, No. CV1903349PAGJSX, 2020 WL 4288443, at *1–2 (C.D. Cal. Feb.

14

25, 2020) (same). There is no danger of prejudice where a hearing date is not immediately

15

set or where litigation is at a relatively nascent stage. Gurvey v. Legend Films, Inc., No.

16

09-cv-00942-IEG, 2010 WL 2756944, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 2010). Further, there is

17

no undue delay where the counsel takes “reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable

18

prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client [and] allowing

19

time for employment of other counsel …” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.16(c).

20

“It is the duty of the trial court to see that the client is protected, so far as possible,

21

from the consequences of an attorney’s abandonment.” CE Res., 2009 WL 3367489, at

22

*2 (denying motion to withdraw where corporation would be left unrepresented by

23

counsel) (citations omitted). “[C]onclusory assertions that there was a communication

24

breakdown is not sufficient to warrant withdrawal.” Amazon Logistics, Inc. v. Mann Bros.

25

Transp., Inc., No. 1:19-cv-01060-DAD-SAB, 2020 WL 2194005, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May

26

6, 2020). At the same time, attorney must “preserve client confidences even when seeking

27

to be relieved as counsel.” Tuft, Mark L., et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Prof. Resp., Ch. 10-B

28

(Dec. 2019); see also Cal. State Bar Form. Opn. 2015-192 (decided under former rule,
-63:18-cv-02109-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-02109-BEN-LL Document 120 Filed 01/06/21 PageID.4364 Page 7 of 7

1

providing that an attorney may disclose to court only as much as reasonably necessary to

2

demonstrate need to withdraw).

3

The Court recognizes that granting the withdrawal motion would leave Berghoff, a

4

corporate Defendant, without counsel, in contravention of Local Rule 83.3(k). However,

5

Rule 83.3(k) is not offended where the court orders an unrepresented corporate defendant

6

to find substitute counsel and gives them some time to do so. See e.g., Indymac Fed.

7

Bank, F.S.B. v. McComic, No. 08-CV-1871-IEG-WVG, 2010 WL 2000013 (S.D. Cal.

8

May 18, 2010) (granting counsel’s motion to withdraw as defendants could no longer pay

9

and were not prejudiced, but also directing defendants to secure substitute counsel, where

10

counsel cited the client limited partnership’s refusal to participate in litigation and

11

inability to pay fees as reasons for withdrawal); McNally v. Commonwealth Financial

12

Systems, Inc., 2013 WL 685364 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2013) (granting motion where

13

litigation was at an early stage and where corporate defendant was unable to pay legal

14

fees, consented to the motion, and had “ample opportunity to retain substitute counsel as

15

needed”). Nonetheless, the matter remains within the Court’s discretion and subject to

16

considerations of prejudice, harm, and delay. The Court notes this case is not in the earlier

17

stages, and on the contrary, is nearing trial. Thus, concerns of prejudice, harm, and delay

18

are heightened at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court finds that the

19

motion, as drafted, is inadequate and is therefore DENIED. Counsel may refile their

20

motion if they believe the Court’s concerns laid out in this Order can be readdressed.

21

IV.

CONCLUSION

22

For the above reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion as follows:

23

1.

Defendant’s counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record is DENIED

24

without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion in accordance with Local Rules and stating

25

the grounds discussed above.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

DATED:

January 5, 2021
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ
United States District Judge

28
-7-

3:18-cv-02109-BEN-LL