Opinion
23-cv-02690-HSG
03-15-2024
JUSTINE SINCLAIR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AGILE WEB STUDIOS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY RE: DKT. NO. 88
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Defense counsel's motion to appear remotely at the hearing on the motion to withdraw as counsel. See Dkt. No. 88. The Court denies the motion, because the issues raised on the motion are sensitive and warrant an in-person discussion with counsel (and ideally the client, who also has been ordered to appear). Because the Defendants here are entities, as a matter of law they cannot proceed pro se. See Civil L.R. 3-9(b) (“A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court.”). So counsel's motion to withdraw is not simply a formality: the Court will have to assess whether under the circumstances withdrawal without substitution of new counsel is appropriate. The Court is not insensitive to counsel's observation of Ramadan, but assumes that he is continuing to practice law during this month while doing so. And the Court does not accept any suggestion that traveling here for the hearing is an undue hardship in itself: if counsel finds travel outside of Southern California to be unacceptably burdensome, he should not have taken on representation in a case venued in Northern California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.