Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01069/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01069-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Castle Rock Vineyards
Plaintiff
Albert L. Good
Plaintiff
New World Fruits, Ltd.
Defendant

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT L.. GOOD, dba CASTLE ROCK

VINEYARDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEW WORLD FRUITS, LTD.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:09-cv-01069 LJO GSA 

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR

DEFENDANT NEW WORLD FRUITS, LTD.

(Document 18)

INTRODUCTION

On January 21, 2010, Defendant’s counsel Robert S. Ackerman, Esq. of Corleto &

Ackerman LLP filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant New World Fruits, Ltd.. 

(Doc. 18.) The motion was scheduled to be heard at 9:30 a.m. on February 26, 2010, before this

Court. On February 22, 2010, the Court determined the matter was suitable for decision without

oral argument and the matter was taken under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 

//

//

1

Case 1:09-cv-01069-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 5
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

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Albert L. Good dba Castle Rock Vineyards filed a complaint on June 17, 2009. 

The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion. 

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages totaling $1,093,292.20 plus interest and fees and costs of suit. 

(Doc. 2.) On July 17, 2009, Defendant New World Fruits, Ltd. (“NWF”) filed its answer to the

complaint. (Doc. 8.) Prior to the initial scheduling conference being held, counsel for NWF

filed the instant motion to withdraw as counsel. (Doc. 18.) 1

Counsel moves to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Local Rule 182(d) and Rule 3-

700(C)(1)(f) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct as NWF has advised that Ackerman

is no longer authorized to act on NWF’s behalf and that he would not be paid for legal services

rendered.

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 182(d) provides as follows:

Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may not

withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without leave of court upon noticed

motion and notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared. The

attorney shall provide an affidavit stating the current or last known address or

addresses of the client and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to

withdraw. Withdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional

Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the attorney shall conform to the

requirements of those Rules. The authority and duty of the attorney shall continue

until relieved by order of the Court issued hereunder. Leave to withdraw may be

granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.

Attached to counsel’s motion is the Declaration of Robert S. Ackerman wherein counsel

indicates that liquidation proceedings, similar to bankruptcy proceedings in this country, have

commenced on behalf of NWF in the United Kingdom. Counsel identifies Neil Francis Hickling

as the appointed liquidator and has provided Mr. Hickling’s contact information. (Ackerman

Decl., ¶ 5.) Counsel declares that he has had email communication with attorney Deborah

Morgan of Smith & Williamson in Worcester regarding this matter. Ms. Morgan was hired to

A previous motion was denied without prejudice. (See Doc. 17.) 1

2

Case 1:09-cv-01069-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 5
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

protect Defendant’s interests in the United Kingdom simultaneous with Mr. Ackerman’s

retention on behalf of Defendant to protect its interests in this country. (Ackerman Decl., ¶¶ 4,

6.) More particularly, counsel declares that Ms. Morgan advised him that Mr. Hickling is “the

only representative of NWF able to authorize any actions taken on NWF’s behalf,” and that

Hickling would not authorize any further action to be taken in the instant matter by Ackerman

“and that NWF will not pay [Ackerman’s] firm for any legal services rendered on NWF’s

behalf.” (Ackerman Decl., ¶ 6.) As to his declaration, counsel has appended correspondence

from Mr. Hickling directed to all creditors of NWF, dated September 29, 2009, wherein Hickling

advised he had been appointed liquidator, and among other things, that parties should “complete

an informal proof of debt form” if they had not already done so. Hickling enclosed a copy of

creditor’s report and statement regarding NWF insolvency. (Ackerman Decl., Ex. 1.) Also

attached as an exhibit is an email string between Deborah Morgan and counsel, dated between

September 18, 2009 and October 20, 2009, referencing the liquidation proceeding and the fact

counsel will not be compensated for additional work on behalf of NWF, and will be included as a

creditor in the liquidation proceeding for costs outstanding. (Ackerman Decl, Ex. 2.)

No opposition to the instant motion has been filed. 

2

Counsel for NWF has provided complete contact information for both Ms. Morgan and

Mr. Hickling in the United Kingdom. (Ackerman Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) He indicates he has served the

instant motion upon Plaintiffs’ counsel and the following: NWF; Robert Borley and Martin

Seymour of NWF ;counsel for NWF - Ms. Morgan; and liquidator for NWF - Mr. Hickling. (See

Doc. 18 [Proof of Service].) 

Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(f) provides that an attorney may request

permission to withdraw if the client breaches an agreement or obligation as to expenses or fees. 

Rule 3-700(A)(2) also provides that a “member shall not withdraw from employment until the

Plaintiffs filed a statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s initial motion to withdraw 2

as counsel for NWF. (See Doc. 15.)

3

Case 1:09-cv-01069-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 02/26/10 Page 3 of 5
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

member has taken 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.” Here, counsel

has provided NWF, its counsel and the appointed liquidator in the United Kingdom, with notice

of the motion and with time to find additional counsel. NWF has not opposed the motion. No

discovery deadlines or trial dates have been set, thus the risk of prejudice to Defendant NWF is

minimal. 

Given the fact no opposition has been filed and there appears to be no prejudice to

Defendant NWF, the motion will be granted. However, Defendant is advised that a “corporation

may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. California Men’s

Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721 (1993); United States v. High Country

Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Osborn v. President of Bank

of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 829, 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824); Turner v. American Bar Ass’n, 407

F.Supp. 451, 476 (N.D. Tex. 1975) (citing the “long line of cases” from 1824 to the present

holding that a corporation may only be represented by licensed counsel). All artificial entities

must appear in federal court through counsel. Rowland, 506 U.S. at 202. Additionally, this

Court’s Local Rule 183(a) provides: “A corporation or other entity may appear only by an

attorney.” 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED;

2. Counsel Robert S. Ackerman is ordered to serve a copy of this order on New

World Fruits, Ltd., Robert Borley, Martin Seymour, Deborah Morgan and Neal

Francis Hickling via email and the United States Postal Service, forthwith. 

Counsel shall provide the Court with a declaration indicating proof of service;

3. The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to RELIEVE Robert S. Ackerman, Esq., of

Corleto & Ackerman LLP as counsel for Defendant;

4

Case 1:09-cv-01069-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 02/26/10 Page 4 of 5
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

4. New World Fruits, LLP, shall retain counsel or provide the Court with a statement

regarding its intention to obtain counsel within sixty (60) days of the date of this

order; and

5. The initial scheduling conference currently set for March 1, 2010 is VACATED

and CONTINUED to June 9, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 26, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:09-cv-01069-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 02/26/10 Page 5 of 5