Opinion
No. 2:14-cv-02889-KJM-AC
12-01-2016
MYECHECK, INC., Plaintiff, v. SEVEN MILES SECURITIES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Brian R. Katz's motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff. Mot, ECF No. 56. The motion is unopposed. As explained below, the motion is DENIED.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
The local rules of this district require an attorney who would withdraw and leave his or her client without representation to obtain leave of the court upon a noticed motion. E.D. Cal. L.R. 182(d). Local Rule 182(d) also requires an attorney to provide notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared, and an affidavit stating the current or last known address of the client. Finally, to comply with Local Rule 182(d), the attorney must conform to the requirements of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Id. California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700 provides several grounds upon which an attorney may seek to withdraw, including where "[t]he client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment," Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(5), and where the client's conduct has "render[ed] it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively," id. 3-700(C)(1)(d).
The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is within the court's discretion. McNally v. Eye Dog Found. for the Blind, Inc., No. 09-01184, 2011 WL 1087117, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2011) (citation omitted). District courts in this circuit have considered several factors when evaluating a motion to withdraw, including the reason for withdrawal, prejudice to the client, prejudice to the other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and possible delay. See Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 09-01643, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010); CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Group, LLC, No. 08-02999, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009); Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 07-594, 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008).
II. DISCUSSION
Here, granting the motion to withdraw would leave corporate plaintiff MyEcheck without counsel. "It is a longstanding rule that corporations and other incorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney." CE Res., Inc., LLC v. Magellan Group, LLC, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (9th Cir. Oct. 14, 2009) (attorney not allowed to withdraw in representation of corporate client). Local Rule 183(a) confirms that a corporation or other entity may only appear through an attorney. A grant of Mr. Katz's motion in this instance would effectively place the plaintiff in violation of the rules as it would no longer have counsel to represent it.
While Mr. Katz avers he has attempted to contact plaintiff in multiple ways on multiple occasions, he has not indicated an attempt to advise plaintiff of the need to substitute counsel, or an attempt to advise his client of the rules violations it would incur should he be allowed to withdraw. "It is the duty of the trial court to see that the client is protected, so far as possible, from the consequences of an attorney's abandonment." CE Res., Inc., 2009 WL 3367489, at *2. Accordingly, in order to protect plaintiff's interests before this tribunal, the court declines to grant Mr. Katz's request at this time.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Mr. Katz's motion to withdraw is DENIED without prejudice.
This order resolves ECF No. 56.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 1, 2016.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE