Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00850/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00850-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL

MANAGEMENT & SERVICER, INC., 

a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, a 

limited liability company; 

AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LENDER, a 

subsidiary of Bank of 

America, N.A.; BANK OF

AMERICA N.A., a National 

Association; BANK OF NEW YORK 

MELLON, a corporation; 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEM INC., a

corporation; VERIPRISE 

PROCESSING SOLUTIONS LLC, a 

limited liability company; 

FIELD ASSET SERVICES INC., a

corporation; SAFEGUARD 

PROPERTIES LLC, a limited 

liability company; MICHAEL

SALZA, an individual; ALBANY 

SCOTT, an individual, and 

DOES 1 through 100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-00850-GEB-CKD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

CONTINUING HEARING ON 

DEFENDANTS’ DISMISSAL MOTIONS 

Pending for decision are three dismissal motions 

seeking to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See ECF Nos. 8, 12, 13.) Each 

Case 2:15-cv-00850-GEB-CKD Document 18 Filed 06/19/15 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

2

dismissal motion is noticed for hearing on June 29, 2015. 

Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to each motion as required by Local Rule 230(c).

Further, in certain Defendants’ Notice of Plaintiff’s 

failure to oppose their motion, Defendants state they 

“ha[ve] . . . received an unofficial notice that [Plaintiff’s] 

attorney of record is no longer representing the Plaintiff in 

this action.” (Def.’s Notice, ECF No. 15.) Defendants attached as 

an exhibit to their Notice an email from Plaintiff’s counsel, in 

which he states: “I’m no longer representing ICM & Servicer, Inc. 

Please direct all further mailings and notifications to their 

agent for service of process or ICM’s address directly.” (Id. Ex. 

A.) 

Local Rule 182(d) prescribes: 

Unless otherwise provided herein, an 

attorney who has appeared may not withdraw 

leaving the client in propria persona without 

leave of court upon noticed motion and notice 

to the client and all other parties who have 

appeared. . . . Withdrawal as attorney is 

governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct 

of the State Bar of California, and the 

attorney shall conform to the requirements of 

those Rules. The . . . duty of the attorney 

of record shall continue until relieved by 

order of the Court issued hereunder. . . .

(emphasis added). Further, the California Rules of Professional 

Conduct prohibit an attorney from withdrawing his or her 

representation “until the [attorney] has taken reasonable steps 

to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the 

client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time 

for employment of other counsel, . . . and complying with 

applicable laws and rules.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(A)(2).

Case 2:15-cv-00850-GEB-CKD Document 18 Filed 06/19/15 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

3

Here, it is unknown what efforts, if any, Plaintiff’s 

counsel has taken to avoid prejudicing his client, especially 

since Plaintiff is a corporation, which “may appear in . . . 

federal court[] only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. Cal. 

Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-

202 (1993); see also E.D. Cal. R. 183 (“A corporation . . . may 

appear only by an attorney.”). Further, the “[f]ailure of a 

corporation to retain counsel may result in its complaint . . . 

being stricken.” S. Parker Constr., Inc. v. Suntex Homes, LLC, 

No. 2:08-CV-1439 JCM (GWF), 2010 WL 4983292, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 

2, 2010); accord Mastodon Invs. v. CIT Grp., Inc., No. CIV S-08-

392 FCD KJM PS, 2008 WL 1787765, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2008) 

(striking unrepresented corporate plaintiffs from amended 

complaint). 

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s counsel, Eric 

Rasmussen, is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) in a writing to be 

filed no later than June 22, 2015, why sanctions should not be 

imposed against him for failing to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to the pending dismissal motions. The 

filing shall also state why sanctions should not be imposed 

against him for the apparent abandonment of his client, and for 

his failure to comply with Local Rule 182(d) if he intends to 

seek an order authorizing his withdrawal as Plaintiff’s counsel.

Plaintiff’s counsel is warned that potential sanctions include a 

monetary sanction and/or referral of this matter to the State Bar 

of California. If a hearing is requested on the OSC, it will be 

held on August 3, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status 

conference scheduled on that date. 

Case 2:15-cv-00850-GEB-CKD Document 18 Filed 06/19/15 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

4

Further, since Plaintiff has not responded to the 

pending dismissal motions, those motions are rescheduled for 

hearing on July 27, 2015, commencing at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff shall 

file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the 

rescheduled motions as required by Local Rule 230(c).

The Clerk of the Court shall also serve a copy of this 

order on Plaintiff at the following address

1: 

9911 W. Pico Blvd., Suite 1520

Los Angeles, CA 90035

Dated: June 18, 2015

 

1 Plaintiff’s counsel provided this address in the referenced email as the 

“best address to use” for Plaintiff. (Def.’s Notice, Ex. A.)

Case 2:15-cv-00850-GEB-CKD Document 18 Filed 06/19/15 Page 4 of 4