Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02641/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02641-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 7:6(b) Federal Commodity Exchange Regulation

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION ET AL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 NATIONAL INVESTMENT

CONSULTANTS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-02641 JSW

ORDER CONDITIONALLY

GRANTING THELEN REID AND

PRIEST LLP’S MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Thelen Reid and Priest LLP’s

(“Thelen”) motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Pacific Best Group LTD, a/k/a Pacific

Best Company Ltd. (“Pacific Best”). Plaintiffs, the United States Commodity Futures Trading

Commission and the Commissioner of Corporations of the State of California oppose the

motion. Pacific Best has not submitted an opposition to the motion. The Court has reviewed

the parties’ papers and relevant legal authority and has had the benefit of oral argument. 

The Court finds that good cause exists to warrant Thelen’s request to withdraw from

representing Pacific Best based on its representations that an actual conflict has arisen between

Pacific Best and individual defendant Raymond Tse, which has not been waived, and on

Thelen’s representations that Pacific Best is not cooperating in this litigation. However, Pacific

Best is a corporation and cannot represent itself. See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506

U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); Civil Local Rule 3-9(b). Nor has Pacific Best filed a substitution of

counsel, despite having notice of Thelen’s motion to withdraw. 

Case 3:05-cv-02641-JSW Document 113 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Where, as here, withdrawal by an attorney from an action is not accompanied by

simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel, leave to withdraw may be subject to the

condition that papers continue to be served on counsel unless and until the client appears by

other counsel. See Civ. L.R. 11-5(b) (stating that when withdrawal by an attorney from an

action is not accompanied by simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel . . . 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). 

Therefore, the Court conditionally GRANTS Thelen’s motion to withdraw with respect

to Pacific Best upon the condition that the withdrawal will not be effective until June 30, 2006,

or until substitute counsel makes an appearance, whichever occurs sooner. Any documents

pertaining to this action will continue to be served on Thelen for forwarding purposes until June

30, 2006, or until substitute counsel has entered an appearance. 

Because a corporation cannot represent itself, Pacific Best must file a substitution of

attorney by no later than June 30, 2006. Pacific Best is admonished that failure to retain

substitute counsel may result in the Court entering a judgment against it. 

Thelen is HEREBY ORDERED to serve this Order upon Pacific Best, by no later than

June 2, 2006, and file proof of such service with the Court by June 5, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02641-JSW Document 113 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 2