Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01506/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01506-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRC GROUP, LLC, a California Limited

Liability Co.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

QUEPASA CORPORATION, a Nevada

Corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01506 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF COUNSEL’S

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In this contract dispute between two businesses, plaintiff’s counsel Sinsheimer Juhnke

Lebens & Melvor moves to withdraw as counsel of record for plaintiff BRC Group, LLC due to

plaintiff’s alleged failure to pay SJLM. This motion is not accompanied by the simultaneous

appearance of substitute counsel. Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), counsel “may not withdraw

from an action until relieved by order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in

advance to the client and to all other parties who have appeared in the case.” When withdrawal

by an attorney from an action is not accompanied by simultaneous appearance of substitute

counsel or agreement of the parties to appear pro se, 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 clients appear by other counsel or pro se. Civil L.R. 11-5(b).

Attorney Roger B. Frederickson of SJLM has submitted a sworn declaration that he has

“communicated with BRC regarding SJLM’s intent to withdraw” (Frederickson Decl. at 4). It is

unclear from his declaration whether reasonable advance written notice was provided pursuant to

Case 3:09-cv-01506-WHA Document 49 Filed 02/17/10 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

the local rules to plaintiff and to defendants. No details are provided regarding the dates of his

communications with plaintiff, whether they were in writing, or whether he communicated with

defendants at all. In addition, plaintiff is a corporation, and corporations cannot appear pro se. 

Civil L.R. 3-9(b). There is no indication as to the status of plaintiff’s search for substitute

counsel, if any. Plaintiff’s lack of representation would therefore create unnecessary delay.

SJLM cannot be allowed to leave its client without representation. Thus, the request to

withdraw as counsel is DENIED until plaintiff obtains substitute counsel. Plaintiff should work

with its current counsel to obtain new counsel so that current counsel can be relieved. In the

meantime, SJLM retains all the responsibilities of counsel of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01506-WHA Document 49 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 2