Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01779/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01779-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 47:0151 Federal Communications Act of 1934

---

– 1 – 17cv1779

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

D.R. MASON CORPORATION, 

CO., 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-01779-BAS-WVG

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING RENEWED 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

(ECF No. 27);

AND

(2) ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO 

FILE NOTICE OF 

IDENTIFICATION OF 

SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL

v.

GBOD, LLC, et al.

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is a renewed motion for leave to withdraw as 

counsel filed by Plaintiff D.R. Mason Corporation’s (“D.R. Mason Corporation”) 

counsel of record, Matthew J. Faust of Sharif | Faust Lawyers, Ltd. (ECF No. 27.) 

Previously, the Court denied without prejudice Mr. Faust’s request for leave to 

withdraw himself and his firm as counsel because granting the request would leave 

D.R. Mason Corporation without counsel and without the ability to represent itself 

in this action. (ECF No. 24); see Civ. L.R. 83.3(j) (“Only natural persons representing 

Case 3:17-cv-01779-BAS-WVG Document 28 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 17cv1779

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

their individual interests in propria persona may appear in court without 

representation . . . . All other parties, including corporations, partnerships and other 

legal entities, may appear in court only through an attorney.”); see also Rowland v. 

Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better 

part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only 

through licensed counsel.”). Instead, the Court gave D.R. Mason Corporation thirty 

days to retain new counsel. (ECF No. 24.) Thirty days have now passed, and Mr. 

Faust again makes his request for leave to withdraw as counsel. (ECF No. 27.) 

In the renewed motion, Mr. Faust states that “there has been a breakdown in 

[his] firm’s communications with Plaintiff,” and that “[d]espite [their] efforts, [they] 

have received no instructions from Plaintiff and Plaintiff has provided no responses 

to [their] own instructions.” (Faust Decl. ¶ 2.) Mr. Faust also adds that “Plaintiff has 

not met its obligations owed to [his firm]” and that withdrawal should be allowed to 

“prevent any further delay or prejudice” to D.R. Mason Corporation. (Id.) Further, 

Mr. Faust states that his firm notified D.R. Mason Corporation on June 26, 2018 of 

the Court’s previous Order affording it thirty days to retain new counsel. (Id. ¶ 5.) 

D.R. Mason Corporation did not respond to the firm’s communications. (Id.) It is Mr. 

Faust’s belief that D.R. Mason Corporation has yet to retain substitute counsel. (Id.)

Upon review of the renewed motion, the Court grants the motion. (ECF No. 

27); see Garrett v. Ruiz, No. 11-cv-2450-IEG-WVG, 2013 WL 163420, at *2 (S.D. 

Cal. Jan. 14, 2013). “In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: 

(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to 

other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; 

and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Garrett, 

2013 WL 163420, at *2 (quoting Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., LLC, No. 

09-cv-1301-IEG-POR, 2010 WL 444708, at * 1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010)). Mr. Faust 

states that his firm has attempted to contact his client on multiple occasions for 

months without avail. (Faust Decl. ¶ 2.) Due to this lack of communication, Mr. Faust 

Case 3:17-cv-01779-BAS-WVG Document 28 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 17cv1779

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

and his firm have been unable to proceed with this case because they lack any 

direction from their client, including on how to respond to the defendant’s motion to 

dismiss. (Id.; see ECF No. 23.) Instead, Mr. Faust has sought (and obtained) multiple 

extensions of time to respond to the motion. (See ECF Nos. 19, 24.) Additionally, 

even after thirty days from the Court’s previous Order regarding the withdrawal 

motion, D.R. Mason Corporation has yet to respond to its own counsel regarding its 

representation. (Id. ¶ 5.) The Court also notes that the defendant’s counsel supports 

the withdrawal of counsel to the extent that it does not further delay of the resolution 

of this case. (ECF No. 25.) As for delay, the Court recognizes that not permitting 

withdrawal will likely lead to further delays in resolving this action. Because of its 

refusal to communicate with its counsel, D.R. Mason Corporation has yet to respond 

to a motion to dismiss filed almost three months ago, prejudicing itself and the 

defendant. (See ECF No. 17.) In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the 

balance of factors weighs in favor of withdrawal. The Court also recognizes that 

withdrawing Mr. Faust and his firm as counsel may leave D.R. Mason Corporation

without representation, and thus it cannot proceed with its claims. See Civ. L.R. 

83.3(j). 

Because the Court has only received communication regarding D.R. Mason 

Corporation’s current representation through Mr. Faust, the Court will permit D.R. 

Mason Corporation to identify its substitute counsel, if it has one, before the Court 

dismisses this action. However, if D.R. Mason Corporation does not have substitute 

counsel, or does not identify its counsel, then the Court will dismiss this action in its 

entirety for failure to retain counsel. See Greenspan v. Admin. Office of the United 

States Courts, No. 14-cv-2396-JTM, 2014 WL 6847460, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 

2014) (dismissing corporate plaintiffs for failure to obtain legal representation).

According, the Court GRANTS the motion for leave to withdraw as counsel 

of record. (ECF No. 27.) Additionally, the Court ORDERS D.R. Mason Corporation

to file a Notice of Identification of Substitute Counsel no later than August 15, 

Case 3:17-cv-01779-BAS-WVG Document 28 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 17cv1779

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

2018. If no such notice is filed, then the Court will dismiss this action in its entirety 

for failure to retain counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 31, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01779-BAS-WVG Document 28 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4