Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00580/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00580-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1030 Fraud &amp; Related Activity in Connection with Computers

---

1

16-CV-0580 W (AGS)

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

DK HOLDINGS, dba DOTCOM HOST,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIVA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-0580 W (AGS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY 

[DOC. 112]

Pending before the Court is a motion to substitute attorney for Plaintiff DK 

Holdings. (Mot. to Substitute [Doc. 112].) Plaintiff moves to substitute One LLP for 

Knobbe, Martens, Olson, & Bear LLP. The motion bears the signatures of the 

withdrawing attorneys and the substituting attorneys. (See id.) It lacks Plaintiff’s 

signature, in violation of the Southern District’s Local Rules. See Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(2).

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:16-cv-00580-W-AGS Document 113 Filed 11/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16-CV-0580 W (AGS)

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 grant or denial of an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a civil case is a matter 

addressed to the discretion of the trial court . . . .” Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, 

Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Factors considered in evaluating the 

application include: “1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; 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.” CE Resource, Inc. v Magellan Group, LLC, 2009 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal. Oct. 14, 2009) (citing Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, at 

*1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)).

Though the motion lacks Plaintiff’s signature, it contains a representation from 

both sets of attorneys (signed by five attorneys, total) that DK Holdings has retained One 

LLP in place of Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP. Attorneys are officers of the 

court, see Cal. Rule of Court 9.4, and it is reasonable to infer from the motion that 

Plaintiff consents to the substitution. Granting the motion would not prejudice other 

litigants, harm to the administration of justice, or delay resolution of this matter in any 

meaningful way. 

The Court GRANTS the motion. One LLP is now counsel of record for DK 

Holdings in place of Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00580-W-AGS Document 113 Filed 11/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2