Omni Innovations LLC v. Ascentive LLC et al

Filing 84

MINUTE ORDER by Judge John C Coughenour. The Court GRANTS 78 Motion for Leave to Withdraw as counsel. Mr. Siegel and Mr. McKinley are hereby permitted to to withdraw as counsel in this matter. Such withdrawal is effective as of Thursday, October 11, 2007.(CL, )

Omni Innovations LLC v. Ascentive LLC et al

Doc. 84

Case 2:06-cv-01284-JCC

Document 84

Filed 09/17/2007

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MINUTE ORDER ­ 1 v. ASCENTIVE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ADAM SCHRAN, individually and as part of his marital community; JOHN DOES, I-X, Defendants. The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge: This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's attorneys' unopposed Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel and to File Declarations Under Seal (Dkt. No. 78), together with sealed declarations of Plaintiff's counsel, Robert J. Siegel and Douglas E. McKinley, Jr. (Dkt. Nos. 79 & 80). Having fully considered the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS, in full, the Motion to Withdraw. Mr. Siegel and Mr. McKinley are hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel in this matter. Such withdrawal is effective as of Thursday, October 11, 2007. Mr. Siegel and Mr. McKinley are hereby UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE OMNI INNOVATIONS, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, CASE NO. C06-1284-JCC MINUTE ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-01284-JCC

Document 84

Filed 09/17/2007

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DIRECTED to turn over Plaintiff's documents and files to Plaintiff or to the counsel of its choice and facilitate the transition of the case to new counsel as required by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Furthermore, the declarations of Mr. Siegel (Dkt. No. 79) and Mr. McKinley (Dkt. No. 80) will remain SEALED. Plaintiff is advised that, as a business entity, it must be represented by a licensed attorney. Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) ("It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel."); accord United States v. Unimex, 991 F.2d 546, 549 (9th Cir. 1993) ("Counsel is essential for a corporation at trial because it cannot appear pro se."). Therefore, Plaintiff must be represented by an attorney and cannot proceed without such representation. DATED this 17th day of September, 2007.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk of Court

By

/s/ C. Ledesma Deputy Clerk

MINUTE ORDER ­ 2