Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02415/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02415-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDINE OSGOOD, an individual,

and ANTON EWING, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv2415-GPC(BGS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENSE

COUNSEL’S MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

[Dkt. No. 44.]

v.

MAIN STREAT MARKETING, LLC,

a Utah limited liability company;

JERROD ROBKER, an individual aka

Jerrod McAllister; Does 1-100, ABC

Corporations 1-100, XYZ, LLC’s 1-

100,,

Defendants.

Before the Court is defense counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel for

Defendants Main Streat Marketing, LLC and Jerrod McAllister aka Jerrod Robker

(“Defendants”). (Dkt. No. 44.) No opposition has been filed. Based on the reasoning

below, the Court GRANTS defense counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel for

Defendants. 

“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). The trial court has

discretion whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case. 

See La Grand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998); Stewart v. Boeing Co.,

No. CV 12-5621 RSWL(AGRx), 2013 WL 3168269, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013). 

- 1 - [16cv2415-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:16-cv-02415-GPC-BGS Document 51 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

Courts should consider the following factors when ruling upon a motion to withdraw

as counsel: (1) the reasons why withdrawal issought; (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. 

Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., No. C12-0991JLR, 2014 WL 556010, at *4 (W.D.

Wash. Feb. 12, 2014); Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C09-01643 SBA, 2010

WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010). Local Civil Rule 83.3(f)(3) also

provides: 

Withdrawals. (a) A notice of motion to withdraw as attorney of record

must be served on the adverse party and on the moving attorney's

client. (b) A declaration pertaining to such service must be filed. 

Failure to make service as required by this section or to file the

required declaration of service will result in a denial of the motion.

Local Civil R. 83.3(f)(3). Here, defense counsel has filed a certificate ofservice which

indicates that the motion was served on her clients, Defendants, and Plaintiffs. (Dkt.

No. 44-3.) Rule 3-700 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar

of California provides that an attorney may request a withdrawal if it is unreasonably

difficult for counsel to carry out his employment effectively or breaches an agreement

as to expenses or fees. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C).

According to the motion to withdraw, defense counsel states that according an

engagement agreement between Defendants and defense counsel, Defendants agreed

to pay expenses and feesincurred in defending this action; however, they have not paid

any of the invoices since the inception of the case. (Dkt. No. 45, Tagvoryan Decl. ¶¶

2-4.) In October and November 2016, counsel warned Defendants that their failure to

pay outstanding invoices and lack of communication could result in a withdrawal as

counsel. (Id. ¶ 5.) In addition since mid-November 2016, Defendants have become

increasingly non-communicative and non-responsive to counsel’s telephone calls and

emails and have now completely stopped responding. (Id. ¶ 6.) 

The Court concludes that defense counsel has demonstrated sufficient reasons

to be relieved as counsel. The Court also concludes that the withdrawal will not

- 2 - [16cv2415-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:16-cv-02415-GPC-BGS Document 51 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

prejudice the plaintiff, harm the administration of justice or delay resolution of the

case. The case is still in its early stages of litigation. 

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS defense counsel’s motion to withdraw 

as counsel for Defendants. While Defendant Jerrod McAllister, an individual, may

proceed pro se,Defendant Main Streat Marketing, LLC, a partnership, may not proceed

without counsel. See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory

Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) (“lower courts have uniformly held that 28 U.S.C.

§ 1654, providing that ‘parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by

counsel,’ does not allow corporations, partnerships, or associationsto appear in federal

court otherwise than through a licensed attorney.”); see also Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of

Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1309-10 (2d Cir.1991) (partnership not allowed to be

represented by non-attorney partner); Civil Local Rule 83.3k (“all other parties,

including corporations; partnerships and other legal entities may appear in court only

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

Therefore, the Court will allow Main Streat Marketing, LLC 30 days to obtain

substitute counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance. Main Streat 1

Marketing, LLC is notified that if it fails to obtain new counsel and have counsel file

a notice of appearance, it may be subject to default proceedings. See United States v.

High Country Broadcasting Co. Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993). Mr.

McAllister must notify the Court of his currently mailing address within 30 days from

the date of this order. 

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

It appears that Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, and Defendants, without their

1

counsel, may have negotiated a settlement amongst themselves. (See Dkt. Nos. 42, 47.) 

The Court notes that any dismissal of Defendant Main Streat Marketing, LLC must be

executed by an attorney of record. See Rowland, 506 U.S. at 202.

- 3 - [16cv2415-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:16-cv-02415-GPC-BGS Document 51 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

The hearing set for April 7, 2017 shall be vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 27, 2017

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 4 - [16cv2415-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:16-cv-02415-GPC-BGS Document 51 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4