Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05114/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05114-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Beebell Inc.
Defendant
Ennova Research SRL
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

ENNOVA RESEARCH SRL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEEBELL INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05114-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW

Re: Dkt. No. 74

Attorney Jack V. Valinoti moves to withdraw his firm as Defendant Beebell Inc.'s counsel. 

(Mot. to Withdraw, Dkt. No. 74.) Neither Defendant nor Plaintiff Ennova Research SRL filed an 

opposition to Attorney Valinoti's motion to withdraw. The Court deems the matter suitable for 

disposition without hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and vacates the hearing set for 

September 20, 2018. Having reviewed the filings, the Court GRANTS Attorney Valinoti's motion 

to withdraw as counsel.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the instant case against Defendant on September 6, 2016, asserting a breach 

of contract. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendant initially did not appear, and Plaintiff filed a motion for 

default judgment. (Dkt. No. 12.) At the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, 

Defendant's CEO, Cosimo Spera, appeared pro se. (Dkt. No. 27.) The Court gave Defendant time 

to seek counsel. (Id.)

On March 2, 2017, Attorney Valinoti appeared on behalf of Defendant. (Dkt. No. 35.) 

Defendant filed a motion to set aside entry of default, which the Court granted. (Dkt. No. 44.) 

The parties ultimately settled the case, and judgment was entered. (Dkt. Nos. 58, 59.) Defendant, 

however, failed to satisfy the judgment, and Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to conduct a debtor's 

Case 4:16-cv-05114-KAW Document 78 Filed 08/28/18 Page 1 of 4
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

exam as to Defendant. (Dkt. No. 63.) Plaintiff's motion was granted, and the parties held two 

debtor's exams. (Dkt. Nos. 64, 65, 68.) Defendant, however, failed to provide certain documents, 

and Plaintiff moved for sanctions against both Defendant and Attorney Valinoti. (Dkt. No. 69.)

On August 3, 2018, Attorney Valinoti moved to withdraw, on the ground that Defendant's 

failure to comply with counsel's instructions and to timely pay counsel's invoices has made it 

unreasonably difficult for counsel to effectively represent Defendant. (Mot. to Withdraw at 2.) 

Attorney Valinoti informed Defendant of his firm's intent to seek leave to withdraw as counsel. 

(Valinoti Decl. ¶ 10, Dkt. No. 74-2.) Neither Defendant nor Plaintiff, however, filed an opposition 

to Attorney Valinoti's motion.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a),"[c]ounsel 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." The rule further provides that:

When withdrawal by an attorney from an action is not accompanied 

by simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or agreement of 

the party 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 client appears by other 

counsel or pro se. When this condition is imposed, counsel must 

notify the party of this condition. Any filed consent by the party to 

counsel's withdrawal under these circumstances must include 

acknowledgment of this condition.

Civil L.R. 11-5(b).

Withdrawal is governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Nehad v. 

Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to 

withdrawal by attorney). California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C) sets forth several 

grounds under which an attorney may request permission to withdraw. Counsel may withdraw 

from representation in any matter in which the client "breaches an agreement or obligation to the 

member as to expenses or fees," has made it "unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out 

the employment effectively," or "knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment." 

Cal. Rules of Prof'l Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d), (f) & (C)(5). The court has discretion to grant or 

deny a motion to withdraw, and it can exercise that discretion, and decide to deny such a motion, 

Case 4:16-cv-05114-KAW Document 78 Filed 08/28/18 Page 2 of 4
3

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

"where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding." Gong 

v. City of Alameda, Case No. 03-cv-5495 TEH, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008) 

(internal citation and quotations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Attorney Valinoti moves to withdraw on the ground that his client has failed to comply 

with his instructions, specifically producing all of the documents the Court required Defendant to 

produce to Plaintiff. (Valinoti Decl. ¶ 6.) This has resulted in Plaintiff filing a motion for 

sanctions against Defendant and Defendant's counsel. (See Dkt. No. 69.) Attorney Valinoti also 

states that Defendant has failed to timely pay his invoices, and that Defendant has not made 

arrangements to bring its account current. (Valinoti Decl. ¶ 7.) Thus, Attorney Valinoti states that 

"Defendant's conduct has made it unreasonably difficult for [his firm] to effectively represent 

Defendant in this matter." (Valinoti Decl. ¶ 8.)

The Court finds that good cause exists to grant Attorney Valinoti's motion to withdraw. 

Attorney Valinoti has attested that Defendant has failed to comply with his instructions --

including complying with the Court's orders as to the production of documents -- and that 

Defendant has not timely paid its legal bills. Both of these are valid grounds for withdrawal. 

Further, although Plaintiff and Defendant were served with Attorney Valinoti's motion to 

withdraw, neither objected to the motion. Thus, there has been no showing that withdrawal would 

work an injustice or cause undue delay of existing deadlines. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 

the motion to withdraw.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Attorney Valinoti's motion to withdraw. 

Because Defendant has not consented to the withdrawal and no substitution of counsel has been 

filed, all papers from the Court and from Plaintiff shall continue to be served on Attorney Valinoti

for forwarding purposes until a substitution of counsel is filed. See Civil L.R. 11-5(b).

Because Defendant is a corporation, it is not able to appear in federal court except by 

counsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993). Therefore, Defendant 

has 45 days from the date of this order to find substitute counsel. If Defendant files a notice of 

Case 4:16-cv-05114-KAW Document 78 Filed 08/28/18 Page 3 of 4
4

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

substitution, the Court will set a new hearing date and briefing schedule regarding Plaintiff's 

motion for sanctions. If Defendant does not file a notice of substitution or request an extension of 

time, Plaintiff shall file a status report stating what relief it still seeks from Defendant1and how it 

wishes to proceed with the motion for sanctions.

Attorney Valinoti is instructed to serve this order on Defendant, and to file a proof of 

service of such service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2018

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1

The Court notes that it is not inclined to award any sanctions against Attorney Valinoti, and that 

the motion for sanctions did not appear to raise any valid grounds to hold Attorney Valinoti 

responsible for Defendant's failure to comply with the Court's order.

Case 4:16-cv-05114-KAW Document 78 Filed 08/28/18 Page 4 of 4