Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05020/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05020-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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 1 Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-13, this order may not be cited exceptas provided by Civ.

L. R. 3-4(e).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLOBILL.COM, LLC,

Plaintiff, No. C 02-5020 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE MOTION TO WITHDRAW

ADRIAN MATHAI, et al., AS COUNSEL

Defendants.

_______________________________/

The motion to withdraw filed by the law firm of Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney,

counsel to third-party defendants Daniel and Kathleen Warren, came on for hearing on August

24, 2005 before this court. Vincent O’Gara appeared on behalf of the Murphy law firm, and

the Warrens did not appear.1 No other parties were present. The Murphy law firm stated in

open court that they had diligently forwarded to the Warrens the court’s July 24, 2005 order

requiring the Warrens’ appearance at the hearing, but that the Warrens had rebuffed all

attempts to make contact. Additionally, Mr. O’Gara stated the basis for the request which had

been omitted from the papers filed.

However, due to the Warrens’ objection to the motion as stated in counsel’s

declaration and their failure to appear at the hearing, the motion to withdraw as counsel is

DENIED, without prejudice to its renewal at the time of the filing of the supplemental case

management statement on November 7, 2005. The court requires a statement by the

Warrens as to their objection to their counsel’s motion and as to whether they plan to

substitute new counsel or appear pro se. The Murphy law firm shall diligently continue to

Case 4:02-cv-05020-PJH Document 105 Filed 08/24/05 Page 1 of 2
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

attempt to contact the Warrens and inform them of this requirement. Any subsequent motion

filed by the Murphy law firm must detail the attempts made to contact the Warrens and their

outcome. 

The Warrens are cautioned that if they can provide no good reason for their failures to

respond or if they otherwise ignore this order, the court will proceed to grant the Murphy law

firm’s motion to withdraw even in their absence. In addition, the continued failure to appear or

respond to court orders may also warrant the imposition of their default in favor of the thirdparty plaintiffs. 

This order fully adjudicates the matter listed at no. 102 on the clerk’s docket for this

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2005

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-05020-PJH Document 105 Filed 08/24/05 Page 2 of 2