Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00521/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00521-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 04-521 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY AND GRANTING MOTION FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 12/11/2006**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HILL DESIGN GROUP,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SPRING WANG, ET AL.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 04-521 JF (RS)

ORDER1 GRANTING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY AND

GRANTING MOTION FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

[re: docket no. 66, 77]

King & Wood, LLP (“the firm”), Charles Law (“Law”), and Paul L. Gumina (“Gumina”)

move to withdraw from their representation of the named defendants in this matter. Plaintiff Hill

Design Group (“HDG”) moves for terminating sanctions. No opposition to either motion has

been filed. The Court heard oral argument on both motions on December 8, 2006.

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises from an alleged failed agreement between Plaintiff Hill Design Group

(“HDG”) and Shen-Tai Industry Co., Ltd. (“Shen-Tai”) regarding the design and construction of

outdoor furniture for sale in the United States. The agreement was formed in 1996. In 2001,

Case 5:04-cv-00521-JF Document 81 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 9
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

 The Complaint listed multiple aliases for each defendant and included Does 1 through

500.

2

Case No. C 04-521 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY AND GRANTING MOTION FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(JFLC1)

HDG became aware of perceived problems in the accounting required by the agreement. Over

the next two years, the parties were involved in a series of disputes about the amount of royalties

due to HDG. On February 9, 2004, HDG filed the instant action. It named as defendants ShenTai; Spring Wang, Chairman and CEO of Shen-Tai; Michael Wang, President and General

Manager of Shen-Tai; and Mia Wang, Vice-President of Shen-Tai (collectively, “the named

defendants”).2

1. Loss of Communication with Named Defendants

The firm, through its counsel Gumina and Law, represents the named defendants. The

firm, Gumina, and Law now move to withdraw as counsel to the named defendants. Gumina has

filed a declaration describing the course of the firm’s representation of the named defendants and

its loss of contact with them (“Gumina Declaration”). Gumina states the following:

Gumina has represented the named defendants since the action was filed. Gumina

Declaration ¶ 1. Law has assisted Gumina on the representation, and now works in the firm’s

Beijing office. Id. ¶ 2. To Gumina’s knowledge, the named defendants have lived in Taipei,

Taiwan throughout the pendency of the action. Id. ¶ 1. Gumina communicated regularly with

the named defendants through defendant Michael Wang until July 31, 2006. Id. He did not

communicate directly with defendants Spring Wang and Mia Wang, but did communicate via

phone and email with Ivy Chen, Shen-Tai’s legal adviser. Id. ¶ 1, 3. The last contact he had with

the named defendants was on July 31, 2006, when he received declarations executed by Michael

Wang in opposition to a motion to compel further discovery. Id. ¶ 3. He contacted the firm’s

Beijing offices and asked them for assistance in contacting Michael Wang and Shen-Tai. Id. ¶ 4.

On July 31, 2006, he attempted to telephone Michael Wang to discuss the pending motion

to compel, but found that Wang’s cell phone and home phone numbers had been disconnected. 

Id. He also discovered that Shen-Tai’s office telephone numbers had been disconnected. Id. He

sent emails to Ivy Chen and Michael Wang, but they were returned as undeliverable a few days

Case 5:04-cv-00521-JF Document 81 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 9
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

 Sharon Wang is not a defendant in this action.

3

Case No. C 04-521 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY AND GRANTING MOTION FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(JFLC1)

later. Id. Attempts to fax the named defendants also were unsuccessful. Id. From August to

October, he attempted to contact the named defendants in a number of different ways. Id. ¶ 5-8. 

All of these attempts failed. Id. On October 10, 2006, he learned that Shen-Tai’s internet

domain name registration “shentai.com” had expired. Id. ¶ 9.

Opposing counsel contacted Gumina in late October with information regarding the

whereabouts of the named defendants. Id. ¶ 10. Gumina spoke with opposing counsel on

November 2, 2006. Id. ¶ 11. Opposing counsel provided Gumina with the address of a house in

Woodside, California, that counsel believed was owned by Spring Wang. Id. Opposing counsel

also provided Gumina with a fax number in the 650 area code that his clients previously had used

to send faxes to Michael Wang’s sister, Sharon Wang,3 who then supposedly forwarded them to

Michael Wang. Id. Opposing counsel informed Gumina that his clients had received

information that Shen-Tai had shut down its offices in Taipei, that the company no longer was

doing business in the United States, and that Michael Wang had been jailed in the Peoples’

Republic of China for unknown reasons. Id. Opposing counsel also informed Gumina that he

believed that the house in Woodside had been put up for sale, but that it was heavily mortgaged. 

Id. Gumina knew none of this information previously. Id.

Since receiving this information from opposing counsel, Gumina has attempted to contact

the named defendants through the Woodside address and the “650” fax number. Id. ¶ 12. He

sent letters on November 3rd, 6th, and 7th, explaining the urgency of the situation and advising

his clients that their failure to contact him immediately would prevent him from defending their

interests in the case. Id. In his letter of November 7th, he advised his clients that he would have

no choice but to file a motion to withdraw as their attorney unless he heard from them

immediately. Id. He received no reply from the named defendants. Id. He received

confirmations that the faxes were successful and that the November 3rd and 6th letters were

delivered. Id. He requested signature verification on the November 7th letter, but UPS informed

him that “the receiver was unavailable to sign on the first delivery attempt.” Id. On November

Case 5:04-cv-00521-JF Document 81 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 9
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

Case No. C 04-521 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY AND GRANTING MOTION FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(JFLC1)

8, 2006, he sent copies of plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions to the Woodside address

and the last known address in Taipei. Id. ¶ 13. 

Gumina represents in his declaration that he planned to continue to try to contact his

clients in the period prior to the motion hearing. Id. ¶ 14. Gumina represented at oral argument

that he in fact made these efforts, but that they proved fruitless. 

2. Failure to Comply with Discovery Obligations

 The instant action has given rise to multiple discovery disputes. The Magistrate Judge

granted two motions to compel the named defendants to comply with their discovery obligations

while simultaneously denying motions for sanctions. On May 26, 2005, the Magistrate Judge

compelled the named defendants to “provide answers and materials in response to plaintiff's First

Set of Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents,” but denied the motion

for sanctions on the basis of the “defendants’ professed good faith belief that the outstanding

discovery would be provided after the parties’ attorneys had met with the translator.” May 26,

2005 Order Granting Motion to Compel and Denying Motion for Sanctions 3. On July 7, 2006,

the Magistrate Judge compelled the named defendants to provide amended responses to

interrogatories and to provide materials it had withheld on the stated ground that production

would be too burdensome. July 7, 2006 Order Granting Motion to Compel and Denying Motion

for Sanctions 4. However, the Magistrate Judge denied the motion for sanctions, stating that

“[a]s reflected in the proceeding discussion, it does appear that defendants have not fully

complied with their discovery obligations, but that there has been a breakdown in communication

on both sides during this process. Under these circumstances, sanctions will not be imposed. The

parties are directed to address any remaining or future discovery disputes with a renewed effort at

cooperation.” Id. 

Thomas A. Moore (“Moore”), Counsel for HDG has filed a declaration regarding the

failure of the named defendants to comply with their discovery obligations in the instant action. 

Moore declares the following with regard to the period since the Magistrate Judge’s July 7, 2006

order granting the motion to compel and denying the motion for sanctions:

Case 5:04-cv-00521-JF Document 81 Filed 12/11/06 Page 4 of 9
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

5

Case No. C 04-521 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY AND GRANTING MOTION FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(JFLC1)

 He noticed the deposition of Mia Wang and set it to occur on August 31, 2006. Moore

Declaration ¶ 15. On or about August 21, 2006, Gumina contacted Moore to request an

extension of time to respond to discovery because he had been unable to contact his clients since

August 21, 2006. Id. ¶ 16. On or about August 29, 2006, Moore wrote to Gumina to inform him

that he would reschedule Mia Wang’s deposition if an alternate date was provided. Id. ¶ 17. 

Moore also informed Gumina that he was not amenable to extending the time to respond to the

written discovery. Id. Moore never received alternate dates for Mia Wang’s deposition or the

requested written discovery. Id. 

Moore also states the following: At the September 8, 2006, case management conference,

he informed the Court that outstanding discovery issues remained unresolved. Id. ¶ 18. Defense

counsel admitted at that point that he was no longer in touch with his clients and that he was

contemplating a motion to withdraw. Id. Defense counsel made the same statement at the case

management conference on October 20, 2006. Id. ¶ 19. Moore stated that he was thoroughly

exasperated at the continued delays and defendants’ refusal to comply with their discovery

obligations. Id. ¶ 19. As a result of these delays, Moore conducted an investigation into the

defendants’ whereabouts. Id. ¶ 20. He discovered that over the last two years defendants have

liquidated all their holdings in the United States, and are currently under contract to sell their

family home in Woodside, California. Id. In addition, it appears that Shen-Tai has ceased

operations in the United States. Id. Moore asserts that “[i]t is clear at this time that they have

ceased participating in this case because they are moving their assets overseas and believe that

Plaintiff’s judgment against them will be uncollectible.” Id. 

On November 8, 2006, HDG filed a motion for terminating sanctions in this Court. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

1. Motion to Withdraw 

Counsel shall not withdraw from an action until relieved by order of the Court after

reasonable advance written notice has been given to the client and to all other parties who have

appeared in the case. Civil L.R. 11-5 (a). When withdrawal by an attorney is not accompanied

Case 5:04-cv-00521-JF Document 81 Filed 12/11/06 Page 5 of 9
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

6

Case No. C 04-521 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY AND GRANTING MOTION FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(JFLC1)

by simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or agreement of the party to appear pro se,

leave to withdraw may be subject to the condition that papers may continue to be served on

counsel for forwarding purposes, unless and until the client appears by other counsel or pro se. 

Civil L.R. 11-5(b). 

In the Northern District of California, the conduct of counsel is governed by the standards

of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California, including the Rules

of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. Elan Transdermal Limited v. Cygnus

Therapeutic Systems, 809 F. Supp. 1383, 1387 (N.D. Cal. 1992). Under those standards, an

attorney may request permission to withdraw if the client breaches an agreement or obligation to

the attorney with respect to payment of expenses or fees. Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct

Rule 3-700(C)(1)(f). Additionally, an attorney may request permission to withdraw in matters

where the client’s conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the attorney to represent the client

effectively. Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(C)(1)(d).

2. Motion for Terminating Sanctions

The Ninth Circuit has held that courts should weigh five factors when assessing the

appropriateness of terminating sanctions:

Because the sanction of dismissal is such a harsh penalty, the district court must

weigh five factors before imposing dismissal: (1) the public's interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its dockets; (3)

the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

sanctions. The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most

cases, while the fourth cuts against a . . . dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors

are prejudice and the availability of lesser sanctions.

Henry v. Gill Industries, 983 F.2d 943, 946 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations and quotation marks

omitted). 

III. DISCUSSION

 1. Motion to Withdraw 

The Gumina declaration provides uncontested evidence that the named defendants have

been unwilling or unable to communicate or to cooperate with Gumina since August 1, 2006. 

Case 5:04-cv-00521-JF Document 81 Filed 12/11/06 Page 6 of 9
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

 While Michael Wang may have been imprisoned in China, there is no evidence that any

of the other named defendants have been incarcerated.

7

Case No. C 04-521 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY AND GRANTING MOTION FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(JFLC1)

Gumina has made repeated efforts to contact his clients. The named defendants’ conduct has

rendered it unreasonably difficult for Gumina, Law, and the firm to represent the client

effectively. Counsel may ask to withdraw under such circumstances. Cal. Rules of Professional

Conduct Rule 3-700(C)(1)(d). The Court will grant the motion to withdraw. In light of the

breakdown in communication, the Court will not require the firm to continue to receive service

on behalf of the named defendants. 

2. Motion for Terminating Sanctions

The named defendants repeatedly have failed to honor their discovery obligations in this

case. The Magistrate Judge has refused to grant sanctions twice, but the behavior of the named

defendants since the July 7, 2006 order to compel reveals a new willingness to flout court orders

and ignore discovery obligations. In light of the declarations of Gumina and Moore, it appears

that the named defendants walked away from this litigation at the end of July, 2006.4 These

actions reveal an “abiding contempt and continuing disregard for [the magistrate’s] orders” that

justifies the sanctions of dismissal and default. See Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364

F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (citing Anheuser-Busch v. Natural

Beverage Distributors, 69 F.3d 337, 352 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court concludes that the public's

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court's need to manage its dockets, and the risk

of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions all weigh in favor of granting terminating sanctions. 

The public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits may normally weigh against

granting terminating sanctions, but it does not here, because Gumina’s declaration indicates that

there is little chance of this case being resolved on the merits even if the Court does not grant

terminating sanctions at this point. Finally, the availability of less drastic sanctions does not

weigh against the imposition of terminating sanctions here because it appears that lesser

sanctions would have no effect upon the named defendants’ conduct. 

Gumina has taken all reasonable efforts to contact the named defendants and warn them

Case 5:04-cv-00521-JF Document 81 Filed 12/11/06 Page 7 of 9
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

5

 Gumina represented at oral argument that individual defendants had differing degrees

of involvement with this litigation. These facts would be pertinent to the Court’s analysis of a

motion to set aside the instant order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, but they do not

affect the analysis of the instant motion.

8

Case No. C 04-521 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY AND GRANTING MOTION FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(JFLC1)

of the possible imposition of such sanctions. The named defendants’ failure to provide any

forwarding information or contact their attorney confirms their disinterest in this litigation and

the improvidence of requiring further notice of the motion for terminating sanctions.5

Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion for terminating sanctions. 

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

i. The motion to withdraw is GRANTED. The firm shall send a copy of this

order to the Woodside address and the last known Taipei address.

ii. The motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. 

DATED: December 11, 2006.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-00521-JF Document 81 Filed 12/11/06 Page 8 of 9
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

9

Case No. C 04-521 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY AND GRANTING MOTION FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Paul L. Gumina paul@svbusinesslaw.com, 

Thomas Allen Moore tom@noveckandmoore.com 

Julianne Pinter juliannepinter@sbcglobal.net, karen@rpmlegal.com 

Case 5:04-cv-00521-JF Document 81 Filed 12/11/06 Page 9 of 9