Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02096/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02096-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02096-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED GENETICS SEEDS COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZHANGYE XINZE AGRICULTURAL 

DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-cv-02096-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 30

In this action for declaratory judgment, Plaintiff United Genetics Seed Company 

(“Plaintiff”) alleges it owes nothing under a contract asserted against it by Defendant Zhangye 

Xinze Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. (“Defendant”). Presently before the court is Morrison 

& Foerster’s (“MoFo”) motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendant. Dkt. No. 30. Plaintiff 

opposes the motion. 

The court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 7-1(b). Having carefully considered the parties’ papers in conjunction with the record, 

the court finds, concludes, and orders as follows:

1. Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until 

relieved by order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client 

and to all other parties who have appeared in the case.” In addition, the conduct of counsel 

appearing in this district is governed by the standards of professional conduct required of members 

of the State Bar of California. Civ. L.R. 11-4(a)(1). 

2. California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C) provides several grounds upon 

which counsel may withdraw. To that end, Rule 3-700(C) permits counsel to withdraw if the 

Case 5:15-cv-02096-EJD Document 33 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02096-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

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

Northern District of California

client “by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the 

employment effectively,” or “breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or 

fees.” Rules of Prof’l Conduct of the State Bar of Cal. 3-700(C)(1)(d), (f). Another rule, 

however, forbids withdrawal “until the member 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, complying with rule 3-700(D), and complying with 

applicable laws and rules.” Rules of Prof’l Conduct of the State Bar of Cal. 3-700(A)(2).

3. Courts generally consider several factors when deciding whether to permit the 

withdrawal of counsel, including: “(1) the reasons counsel seeks to withdraw; (2) the possible 

prejudice that withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm that withdrawal might cause to 

the administration of justice; and (4) the extent to which withdrawal will delay resolution of the 

case.” Atkins v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 15-cv-00051-MEJ, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89360, at *3, 

2015 WL 4150744 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2015). Ultimately, permission to withdraw is a discretionary 

decision. See LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998). 

4. Having considered the relevant factors, the court finds that permitting MoFo to 

withdraw is appropriate. In the declaration filed in support of the motion, MoFo states it seeks to 

withdraw because Defendant “is in significant arrears in its payments” and has not paid a retainer 

despite weekly requests by MoFo to fulfill its contractual obligations with the firm. It is certainly 

interesting that MoFo would choose to take action on behalf of a client for which it had yet to 

receive payment. Nevertheless, non-payment of contractual fees is notably one of the reasons for 

permissive withdrawal enumerated in Rule 3-700(C). In addition, MoFo states that it provided 

Defendant with notice with its intent to withdraw on April 1, 2016, which the court finds amounts 

to due notice under Rule 3-700(A) and allows sufficient time for the employment of other counsel. 

5. Although Plaintiff argues otherwise, any delay from withdrawal will likely be 

minimal. While it is true that the initial Case Management Conference scheduled for the same 

date as the motion to withdraw will need to be reset given Defendant’s anticipated status as an 

unrepresented corporation, that hearing and its associated pre-hearing deadlines are the only ones 

affected. And for this reason, no harm is done to the administration of justice. 

Case 5:15-cv-02096-EJD Document 33 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02096-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

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

Northern District of California

6. Moreover, the possible prejudice to Plaintiff is unsubstantial. Outside of the delay 

previously addressed, Plaintiff has not stated how it believes MoFo’s withdrawal from 

representation is otherwise detrimental. 

Based on the foregoing, MoFo’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendant is 

GRANTED.

As both parties recognize, Defendant cannot appear in this court without an attorney to 

represent the corporate entity. See United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 

(9th Cir. 1993) (“A corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel.”). The 

court therefore orders Defendant to retain new counsel on or before July 25, 2016. Any newly 

retained counsel shall promptly file a notice of appearance in this action. Defendant is advised 

that failure to retain counsel within the timeframe provided could result in adverse consequences, 

including an order striking its answer, entry of default and default judgment. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), MoFo shall remain as counsel of record until July 25, 

2016, for the purposes of receiving and providing legal documents to Defendant unless another 

attorney appears prior to the expiration of that period. MoFo shall serve a copy of this order on 

Defendant and file a certification of service demonstrating that such service has been completed 

within three days of the date this order is filed. 

The Case Management Conference scheduled for June 30, 2016, is CONTINUED to 10:00 

a.m. on August 25, 2016. The parties shall file an updated Joint Case Management Conference 

Statement on or before August 18, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02096-EJD Document 33 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 3