Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03728/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03728-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud

---

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

LES FIELDS/C.C.H.I. INSURANCE 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff,

v.

STUART M HINES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03728-MEJ 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW

Re: Dkt. No. 29

Since November 2013, Defendant Risk Management and Reinsurance Services, Inc. 

(“Risk”), a California corporation, has been represented by the law firm Clapp, Moroney, 

Vucinich, Beeman and Scheley (“Clapp Moroney”). Lucier Decl. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 29-1. Clapp 

Moroney has now discovered that Risk is currently classified as a “suspended” corporation by the 

California Secretary of State. Id. ¶ 7. For this reason, Clapp Moroney moves for leave to 

withdraw as Risk’s counsel. Dkt. No. 29. No opposition to Clapp Moroney’s motion has been 

filed. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds the matter suitable for determination 

without oral argument, and the February 4, 2016 hearing is vacated.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), counsel may not withdraw from an action until 

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

client and to all other parties who have appeared in the case. The decision to permit counsel to 

withdraw is within the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 

1113 (9th Cir. 2009). When addressing a motion to withdraw, the consent of the client is not 

dispositive. Robinson v. Delgado, 2010 WL 3259384, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2010). Rather, 

the court must consider factors such as the reason counsel seeks to withdraw, the possible 

prejudice caused to the litigants, and the extent to which withdrawal may delay resolution of the 

Case 3:15-cv-03728-MEJ Document 30 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

case. Id.

Additionally, Civil Local Rule 11-4(a)(1) mandates compliance with the standards of 

professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California. Under California Rules

of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d) and (f), a lawyer may withdraw where the client “renders 

it unreasonably difficult for the [lawyer] to carry out the employment effectively” or “breaches an 

agreement or obligation to the [lawyer] as to expenses or fees.” 

Since Risk is a suspended corporation, it lacks the capacity to defend itself in this lawsuit. 

Garvin v. Tran, 2010 WL 2991260, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2010) (citing Traub Co. v. Coffee 

Break Service, Inc., 66 Cal. 2d 368, 371 (1967); Boyle v. Lakeview Creamery Co., 9 Cal. 2d 16, 20

(1937); Cal. Rev. & Tax Code § 23301.5). Further, Clapp Moroney will continue to represent 

Defendant Stuart Hines, a Risk shareholder. Lucier Decl. ¶ 3. All parties have counsel active in 

their representation, and there is no evidence withdrawal will require any additional time to review 

or acclimate to the absence of Clapp Moroney as Risk’s counsel. Therefore, Clapp Moroney’s

motion for leave to withdraw as counsel of record for Risk is GRANTED.

1

 However, pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), the withdrawal is subject to the condition that papers directed to Risk

may continue to be served on Clapp Moroney for forwarding purposes unless and until Risk

appears by other counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1

Should Risk be reinstated, it is advised that it may not appear pro se or through its corporate 

officers, but must retain new counsel forthwith to represent it in this lawsuit. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) 

(“A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only 

through a member of the bar of this Court.”); 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.”); In re Highley, 459 F.2d 554, 555 

(9th Cir. 1972) (“A corporation can appear in a court proceeding only through an attorney at 

law.”).

Case 3:15-cv-03728-MEJ Document 30 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 2