Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04301/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04301-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*E-filed 3/6/07* 

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SOFTWAREWORKS GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

IHOSTING, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

IHOSTING, INC., et al.,

Counterclaimants,

 v.

SOFTWAREWORKS GROUP, INC.,

Counterdefendant. /

No. C06-04301 HRL

ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MOTION TO

WITHDRAW; ORDER FOLLOWING

STATUS CONFERENCE

[Re: Docket Nos. 45, 54]

This case involves a contract deal gone wrong in the spring of last year. Defendants

bought the assets and customers of plaintiff, an internet host company, but the ensuing

“migration” of plaintiff’s customers from California to defendants in New Jersey did not go 

smoothly. Plaintiff sued defendants for breach of contract and other claims. Defendants

counterclaimed for similar claims.

In January 2007, defendants’ counsel filed a motion to withdraw, citing, inter alia,

defendants’ failure to communicate with counsel. Defendants’ attorneys found themselves 

Case 5:06-cv-04301-HRL Document 58 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

unable to respond to discovery or plan for an upcoming settlement conference. On an order

dated February 15, 2007, the court stayed pending discovery and set a status conference to

coincide with the hearing on the motion to withdraw. 

After conducting the hearing/status conference, the court conditionally GRANTS

defense counsel’s motion to withdraw. Because substitute counsel has not appeared and the

defendants have not agreed to appear pro se (nor could the corporate defendants do so), this

leave to withdraw is conditioned on defense counsel continuing to receive papers related to this

action and forwarding such papers to the defendants. Civil Local Rule 11-5(b). This condition

will remain in place unless or until new counsel appears (or, in the case of the individual

defendant, until he enters an appearance pro se). 

Despite this limited continuing involvement of defense counsel in the service process,

the individual defendant, Michael Kofman, is now solely responsible for representing himself

and protecting his rights in this action. The corporate defendants, however, are legally

incapable of representing themselves. The corporate defendants cannot defend this action or

prosecute the cross-complaint without the assistance of an attorney who has formally appeared

in this action. In order to protect their rights, the corporate defendants must forthwith procure

such formal legal representation. 

As for the case schedule, the fact discovery deadline is hereby extended to April 9,

2007. The court’s order of February 15, 2007 stayed discovery, essentially stopping the clock

with respect to outstanding discovery propounded by plaintiff. The stay is hereby lifted and the

defendants’ time for responding to discovery is once again running. For example, the response

to plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, which was due February 21,

2007 (six days from the date of the order staying discovery), is now due March 12, 2007 (six

days from the date of this order). 

//

//

//

//

Case 5:06-cv-04301-HRL Document 58 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Finally, defense counsel represented at the status conference that he would share

defendants’ contact information, to the extent it is available, with the plaintiff and the court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 3/6/07

 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-04301-HRL Document 58 Filed 03/06/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Lael D. Andara landara@ropers.com, aslanlair@ropers.com; mmcpherson@ropers.com;

lkoozmin@ropers.com 

Robert P. Andris randris@ropers.com, lkoozmin@ropers.com; mmcpherson@ropers.com 

Robert Lloyd Maines maines@robertmaineslaw.com, jmills@OMM.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:06-cv-04301-HRL Document 58 Filed 03/06/07 Page 4 of 4