Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01112/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01112-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Crain Walnut Shelling, Inc.
Defendant
Shany Co., Ltd.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHANY CO., LTD., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CRAIN WALNUT SHELLING, INC., et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-CV-01112-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

 Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP (“counsel”) applies ex parte to be relieved as counsel 

of record for plaintiff Shany Co., Ltd. Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. (“Appl.”) at 1, ECF No. 62. Also 

pending before the court are defendant Crain Walnut Shelling, Inc.’s motions to confirm 

arbitration award and to award attorneys’ fees. Def.’s Mot. to Confirm Arbitration Award at 1, 

ECF No. 58; Def.’s Mot. for Attorney Fees at 1, ECF No. 55. Neither filing is opposed, but 

defendant raises concerns related to relieving plaintiff’s counsel. Def.’s Response at 1, ECF 

No. 63. Finding all matters suitable for disposition without hearing, the court submits the 

matters on the papers. As explained below, the court GRANTS the application to withdraw as 

counsel and DENIES the motions to confirm arbitration award and to award attorneys’ fees 

without prejudice. 

Case 2:11-cv-01112-KJM-EFB Document 65 Filed 06/04/14 Page 1 of 2
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

 Withdrawal of counsel is governed by Local Rule 182(d). Under the Rule, an 

attorney who seeks to withdraw must (1) give notice to the client and all parties who have 

appeared; (2) comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California; and 

(3) obtain leave of court. L.R. 182(d). The Rules of Professional Conduct require in turn that 

counsel take “reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the 

client, including giving due notice to the client [and] allowing time for employment of other 

counsel . . . .” CAL. R. PROF. CONDUCT 3-700(A)(2). Further, under the instant circumstances, 

counsel “may not request permission [from the court] to withdraw in matters pending,” unless 

the “client knowingly and freely assents to termination of [counsel’s] employment . . . .” Id. 3-

700(C)(5). 

 Here, counsel has met all withdrawal requirements. First, counsel has provided 

notice to all parties who have appeared, including the represented defendants. Appl. at 5. 

Second, counsel has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the 

rights of plaintiff. Plaintiff knowingly and freely terminated counsel’s employment in October 

2012 and again requested that counsel formally withdraw as counsel of record in April 2014. 

Appl. at 4. Thus, in order to avoid prejudice to plaintiff, counsel must withdraw to permit 

substitution by new counsel of record. Additionally, as a corporation generally may not appear 

pro se, see Bigelow v. Brady, 179 F.3d 1164, 1165 (9th Cir. 1999), the court grants plaintiff 

thirty days to obtain new counsel before considering defendant’s pending motions. 

As set forth above, the motion to withdraw as counsel of record for plaintiff is 

GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to engage new counsel of record within thirty days of the 

filing of this order. Failure to do so will result in an order to show cause. Defendant’s motions 

to confirm arbitration award and to award attorneys’ fees are DENIED without prejudice. 

Defendant is directed to renotice the motions upon the close of the thirty-day period. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 3, 2014. 

Case 2:11-cv-01112-KJM-EFB Document 65 Filed 06/04/14 Page 2 of 2