Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01720/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01720-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1121 Trademark Infringement

---

1

Case No. 15-CV-01720-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF 

TIME, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEDIATION DEADLINE

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

SEBASTIAN BROWN PRODUCTIONS 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MUZOOKA INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-CV-01720-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF 

TIME, AND GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND 

THE MEDIATION DEADLINE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 114, 115, 119

Before the Court are three motions. First, on August 18, 2016, Anthony Handal and the 

law firm Handal & Morofsky LLC (collectively, “Handal”), counsel for Plaintiff Sebastian Brown 

Productions LLC (“Plaintiff”), filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. ECF No. 114. Second,

Handal filed a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendant Muzooka Inc.’s 

(“Defendant”) pending motion for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 115. The hearing on 

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is set for October 13, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. ECF 

No. 111. Third, on August 22, 2016, Defendant moved to extend the mediation deadline until 

November 30, 2016. ECF No. 119. Given the time sensitive nature of Plaintiff’s motions, 

Plaintiff’s request to waive oral argument, and pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court

Case 5:15-cv-01720-LHK Document 123 Filed 08/23/16 Page 1 of 7
2

Case No. 15-CV-01720-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF 

TIME, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEDIATION DEADLINE

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

deems these motions appropriate for resolution without oral argument. Having considered the 

parties’ submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Handal’s 

motion to withdraw, DENIES Handal’s motion for an extension of time, and GRANTS 

Defendant’s motion to extend the mediation deadline. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the complaint on January 4, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Delaware. ECF No. 1. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California on March 

30, 2015, ECF No. 27, and reassigned to the undersigned judge on July 8, 2015, ECF No. 42. 

On August 8, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 

108. The Court set a hearing date of October 13, 2016 on Defendant’s motion. ECF No. 111. 

The Court has previously granted two motions to dismiss filed by Defendant, but has allowed 

Plaintiff leave to amend Plaintiff’s claim under the Lanham Act. ECF Nos. 64, 86, 99.

On August 16, 2016, Handal moved for a two-month extension of time to file an 

opposition to Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (the “First Extension Motion”). 

ECF No. 112. Handal indicated that “[t]he time is needed to enable the parties to negotiate a 

settlement of their disputes, which both plaintiff and defendants believe may be reasonably 

expected within the requested time.” In a declaration filed in support of the motion, Handal 

declared under penalty of perjury that “[t]he principals are directly attempting to negotiate a 

settlement of this action” and “[i]t is believed that it will be a waste of judicial and party resources 

to proceed with the filing of an opposition to the pending motion under the above circumstances, 

given the possibility of resolution.” ECF No. 112-1. That same day, the Court denied the request 

for an extension of time, and noted that “Defendant did not stipulate to the extension of time, and 

it is unclear how far along the parties are in their settlement negotiations.” ECF No. 113. 

Two days after this Court denied Handal’s request for an extension of time, Handal filed

the instant motion to withdraw. ECF No. 114. Handal represents that he and Plaintiff have 

“[i]rreconcilable differences respecting the conduct of the above captioned action” and that 

Case 5:15-cv-01720-LHK Document 123 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 7
3

Case No. 15-CV-01720-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF 

TIME, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEDIATION DEADLINE

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

Plaintiff consents to the withdrawal. Id. at 2. 

Simultaneous with the motion to withdraw, Handal filed a second motion for an extension 

of time to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, this time for 

only a one-month extension (the “Second Extension Motion”). ECF No. 115. Handal stated that 

“[t]he time is needed to enable Plaintiff to engage new counsel and respond to the pending 

motion.” In a declaration filed in support of the motion for an extension of time, Handal again 

stated that Plaintiff and Defendant are attempting to negotiate a settlement. ECF No. 115-1. 

On August 19, 2016, the Court requested that Defendant respond to the motion to 

withdraw and the Second Extension Motion by August 22, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. ECF No. 116. In 

light of the need to consider Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s motion, the Court extended the 

time for Plaintiff to oppose Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings by one day, to 

August 23, 2016. Id. 

Defendant opposed both of Plaintiff’s motions on August 22, 2016. ECF Nos. 117, 118. 

Contrary to Handal’s representations, Defendant’s attorney declares that no “meaningful 

settlement negations” have occurred since Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint on July 

25, 2016, and Defendant “does not currently believe the parties are close to a settlement of this 

matter.” ECF No. 118-1. Defendant also moved to extend the mediation deadline. ECF No. 119. 

Although Plaintiff’s principal, J. Michael Miller (“Miller”), has told Defendant that Plaintiff is 

interested in settlement, Defendant does believe mediation will be useful prior to the Court’s 

ruling on Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 119-1. 

On August 23, 2016, Handal filed a reply and stated that Plaintiff intends to retain 

substitute counsel.

1

 ECF No. 121. Handal also declared that Miller has been negotiating directly 

with Defendant regarding settlement. ECF No. 121-1. 

 

1 On August 23, 2016, Handal also filed an ex parte motion to allow in camera inspection of 

certain attorney-client communications supporting the motion to withdraw. ECF No. 122. 

Because the Court finds that Handal has sufficiently established grounds for withdrawal, the Court 

DENIES as moot Handal’s motion for in camera inspection.

Case 5:15-cv-01720-LHK Document 123 Filed 08/23/16 Page 3 of 7
4

Case No. 15-CV-01720-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF 

TIME, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEDIATION DEADLINE

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

II. LEGAL STANDARD

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. Civil Local Rule 11-5(b); see also 

Jariwala v. Napolitano, 2011 WL 703730, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2011) (“An attorney may not 

withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.”). The decision to permit counsel to withdraw is 

within the sound discretion of the 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); DeLeon v. Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 3565188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 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. Id. 

Civil Local Rule 11-4(a)(1) requires attorneys practicing in this district to “comply with 

the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California.” Rule 3-

700 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California governs an attorney’s 

withdrawal as counsel. Under that rule, an attorney may seek to withdraw for several reasons, 

including that “[t]he member believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that 

the tribunal will find the existence of . . . good cause for withdrawal.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-

700(C)(6). Before withdrawing for any reason, an attorney must take “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.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(A)(2).

III. DISCUSSION

As irreconcilable differences exist between Handal and Plaintiff, and Plaintiff consents to 

the withdrawal, the Court GRANTS Handal’s motion to withdrawal. See Moss Landing 

Commercial Park LLC v. Kaiser Aluminum Corp., 2009 WL 764873, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 

2009) (granting motion to withdraw based on irreconcilable differences between counsel and 

Case 5:15-cv-01720-LHK Document 123 Filed 08/23/16 Page 4 of 7
5

Case No. 15-CV-01720-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF 

TIME, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEDIATION DEADLINE

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). However, there has been no simultaneous substitution of counsel and Plaintiff, a 

corporation, can not proceed pro se. 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.”). Thus, Handal’s motion is granted subject to the condition that papers continue to be 

served on Handal for forwarding purposes unless and until Plaintiff appears through other counsel. 

Civ. L.R. 11-5(b). Handal is directed to serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff within three (3) 

days and file proof of service with the Court.

The Court acknowledges that Handal’s withdrawal has the potential to prejudice both 

Plaintiff and Defendant. See Milliner v. Bock Evans Fin. Counsel, Ltd., 2016 WL 409799, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2016) (noting that the Court must consider “the possible prejudice that 

withdrawal may cause to other litigants”); Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2010 WL 3702459, 

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010) (same). As to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s 

motion for judgment on the pleadings was originally due yesterday, August 22, 2016. Due to the

need to provide Defendant the opportunity to respond to Handal’s last-minute motion to withdraw, 

the Court extended Plaintiff’s filing deadline to today, August 23, 2016. The consequences of

failing to timely oppose Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings are serious. The Court 

has already dismissed Plaintiff’s case twice for failing to state a claim. ECF Nos. 64, 86. As the 

Court has cautioned Plaintiff, the Second Amended Complaint is Plaintiff’s last chance to allege a 

cognizable claim. See ECF No. 99 (“Failure to . . . cure the deficiencies identified in the Court’s 

March 14, 2016 order will result in a dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim.”). 

Should Plaintiff fail to timely oppose Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court 

will grant the motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s case with prejudice. 

As to Defendant, any delay prejudices Defendant and requires additional expenditure of 

resources on claims that have thus far been uncognizable. Moreover, Handal’s motion to 

withdraw reveals an attempt to manipulate the case schedule. Specifically, there was no indication 

of any issues regarding Handal’s representation of Plaintiff on August 16, 2016, when Handal 

Case 5:15-cv-01720-LHK Document 123 Filed 08/23/16 Page 5 of 7
6

Case No. 15-CV-01720-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF 

TIME, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEDIATION DEADLINE

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

filed the First Extension Motion. See generally ECF No. 112. Just two days later—after the Court 

denied Handal’s motion—Handal filed the Second Extension Motion and the instant motion to 

withdraw. ECF Nos. 114, 115. The Second Extension Motion refers to both the motion to 

withdraw and the purported settlement negotiations as grounds for an extension. These 

circumstances indicate to the Court that Plaintiff is attempting to gain through the motion to 

withdraw what Plaintiff did not gain otherwise: an extension of time to file an opposition to 

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Further, Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s request to extend the mediation deadline and has 

told Defendant that Plaintiff wishes to mediate on August 29, 2016. ECF No. 119-1, Declaration 

of Kevin Viau. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff seeks to force the parties to participate in mediation

but, at the same time, avoid filing an opposition to Defendant’s motion for judgment on the 

pleadings. This again suggests that Plaintiff is attempting to delay the motion for judgment on the

pleadings, which may ultimately resolve the case against Plaintiff. The Court concludes that 

permitting Plaintiff to manipulate the schedule in this way would unfairly prejudice Defendant. 

Despite the potential prejudice, the clear breakdown in Handal and Plaintiff’s relationship 

weighs in favor of withdrawal. The Court minimizes the potential prejudice to the parties in two 

ways. First, the Court extends Plaintiff’s deadline to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for 

judgment on the pleadings to September 12, 2016. Defendant may file a reply by September 26, 

2016. The October 13, 2016 hearing at 1:30 p.m. remains as set. This extension of time will 

permit Plaintiff to find new counsel, but will not reward Plaintiff’s attempt to unduly delay filing 

an opposition to Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court will not grant any 

further continuances. If Plaintiff fails to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for judgment on 

the pleadings by September 12, 2016, the Court will grant the motion with prejudice. Second, the 

Court grants Defendant’s motion to extend the mediation deadline. The mediation deadline is 

hereby extended to November 30, 2016. The Court will not require Defendant to participate in 

mediation before the Court rules on Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

Case 5:15-cv-01720-LHK Document 123 Filed 08/23/16 Page 6 of 7
7

Case No. 15-CV-01720-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF 

TIME, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEDIATION DEADLINE

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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Handal’s motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED. Handal 

is directed to serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff within three (3) days and file proof of service 

with the Court. In addition, the Court DENIES Handal’s motion for an extension of time. 

However, to minimize prejudice to all parties from Handal’s withdraw, the Court sets the 

following schedule: Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings 

shall be filed by September 12, 2016. Defendant may file a reply by September 26, 2016. The 

hearing remains as set for October 13, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. Lastly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s 

motion to extend the mediation deadline to November 30, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01720-LHK Document 123 Filed 08/23/16 Page 7 of 7