Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04063/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04063-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDISK CORP,

Plaintiff,

v

MEMOREX PRODUCTS, INC, et al,

Defendants. /

No C 01-4063 VRW

ORDER

The law firm of Mount & Stoelker, PC, moves for leave to

withdraw as counsel for defendant Pretec Electronics Corp. Doc

#409. Counsel declares as follows:

Mount & Stoelker recommended to Pretec “a course of

defense that requires a certain minimum expenditure.” But “Pretec

has indicated that is unwilling to accept its attorneys’ advice as

to the level of effort required to defend the case.” Doc #410

(Duggan Decl) ¶4. Further, “Mount & Stoelker has an agreement with

Pretect whereby Mount & Stoelker is to be paid each month for

services rendered, but Pretec has not made its agreed payments.” 

Id ¶5. Finally, “Mount & Stoelker has informed Pretec of its

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 420 Filed 08/15/06 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

intent to file” the present motion. Id ¶6.

Pursuant to Civ L R 3-9(b), a corporation “or other such

entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this

[c]ourt.” Indeed, “[i]t has been the law for the better part of

two centuries” that “a corporation may appear in the federal courts

only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v California Men’s Colony,

506 US 194, 201-02 (1993) (citing cases). Further, if Pretec

proceeds without counsel, it risks entry of default judgment. See,

for example, Daewoo Electronics Corp of America, Inc v Western Auto

Supply Company, 975 F2d 474, 476 (8th Cir 1992).

Counsel has provided no explanation why the motion to

withdraw is not accompanied by simultaneous appearance of

substitute counsel. Mount & Stoelker’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE to a renewed motion after Pretec has secured substitute

counsel or some showing that Pretec refuses to engage new counsel. 

Cf Civ L R 11-5(b). Counsel is ORDERED to serve a copy of this

order upon Pretec’s chief executive officer.

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 420 Filed 08/15/06 Page 2 of 2