ORDER Denying Without Prejudice [45] Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 2/27/2013. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2013)
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
Page 1 Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document46 Filed02/27/13 Page1 of 3
1
2
*E-FILED: February 27, 2013*
3
4
5
7
NOT FOR CITATION
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
6
THINK COMPUTER CORPORATION,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
No. C11-05496 HRL
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
v.
ROBERT VENCHIARUTTI, in his official
capacity as Deputy Commissioner of the
California Department of Financial Institutions;
WILLIAM HARAF, in his official capacity as
commissioner of the California Department of
Financial Institutions; TRACI STEVENS, in her
official capacity as Acting Secretary of the
California Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency; JACOB A. APPELSMITH, in his
official capacity as Senior Advisor to the
Governor of the State of California; EDMUND
G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of California; and
KAMALA HARRIS, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of California,
[Re: Docket No. 45]
Defendants.
/
23
24
Attorney Michael Brooks Carroll moves for leave to withdraw as plaintiff Think
25
Computer Corporation’s co-counsel of record. The court’s docket indicates that Carroll is
26
plaintiff’s California counsel. Plaintiff is also represented by a Massachusetts attorney who has
27
been admitted pro hac vice in this action. The court has received no objections to the request,
28
and plaintiff stipulates to the withdrawal. Nevertheless, for the reasons stated below, thePage 2 Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document46 Filed02/27/13 Page2 of 3
1
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
2
request is denied.
“Counsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by order of Court after written
3
notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other parties who have
4
appeared in the case.” CIV. L.R. 11-5(a). “In the Northern District of California, the conduct of
5
counsel is governed by the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State
6
Bar of California, including the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California.”
7
Hill Design Group v. Wang, No. C04-521 JF (RS), 2006 WL 3591206 at *4 (N.D. Cal., Dec.
8
11, 2006) (citing Elan Transdermal Limited v. Cygnus Therapeutic Systems, 809 F. Supp. 1383,
9
1387 (N.D. Cal.1992)). Although no reason is given for Carroll’s request to withdraw, plaintiff
10
consents to it. And, the California standards of professional conduct provide that an attorney
11
may seek permission to withdraw if, among other things, the client knowingly and freely
12
assents to termination of the employment. Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-
13
700(C)(5).
14
Even so, plaintiff can only proceed through an attorney. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) (“A
15
corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only
16
through a member of the bar of this Court”); see also Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 17
U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a
18
corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel”); In Re Highley,
19 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972) (“A corporation can appear in a court proceeding only
20
through an attorney at law”). And, plaintiff’s Massachusetts counsel, appearing here on a pro
21
hac vice basis, must have co-counsel who is a member of the bar of this court in good standing
22
and who maintains an office within the State of California. CIV. L.R. 11-3(a)(3).
23
Accordingly, the request to withdraw is denied, without prejudice to renew it upon
24
plaintiff’s retention of other appropriate California counsel who enters an appearance on his
25
behalf in this matter.
26
27
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2013
HOWARD R. LLOYD
28
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2Page 3 Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document46 Filed02/27/13 Page3 of 3
1
5:11-cv-05496-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2
Marvin Nathan Cable
rw@marvincable.com
marvin@marvincable.com, legal@thinkcomputer.com,
3
Michael Brooks Carroll
carroll_law@sbcglobal.net
Peter Keller Southworth
Peter.southworth@doj.ca.gov, Scott.DeMedeiros@doj.ca.gov
4
5
Ryan Marcroft
Ryan.Marcroft@doj.ca.gov, Lois.Carnahan@doj.ca.gov
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document46 Filed02/27/13 Page1 of 3
1
2
*E-FILED: February 27, 2013*
3
4
5
7
NOT FOR CITATION
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
6
THINK COMPUTER CORPORATION,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
No. C11-05496 HRL
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
v.
ROBERT VENCHIARUTTI, in his official
capacity as Deputy Commissioner of the
California Department of Financial Institutions;
WILLIAM HARAF, in his official capacity as
commissioner of the California Department of
Financial Institutions; TRACI STEVENS, in her
official capacity as Acting Secretary of the
California Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency; JACOB A. APPELSMITH, in his
official capacity as Senior Advisor to the
Governor of the State of California; EDMUND
G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of California; and
KAMALA HARRIS, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of California,
[Re: Docket No. 45]
Defendants.
/
23
24
Attorney Michael Brooks Carroll moves for leave to withdraw as plaintiff Think
25
Computer Corporation’s co-counsel of record. The court’s docket indicates that Carroll is
26
plaintiff’s California counsel. Plaintiff is also represented by a Massachusetts attorney who has
27
been admitted pro hac vice in this action. The court has received no objections to the request,
28
and plaintiff stipulates to the withdrawal. Nevertheless, for the reasons stated below, the
PDF Page 3
Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document46 Filed02/27/13 Page2 of 3
1
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
2
request is denied.
“Counsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved by order of Court after written
3
notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other parties who have
4
appeared in the case.” CIV. L.R. 11-5(a). “In the Northern District of California, the conduct of
5
counsel is governed by the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State
6
Bar of California, including the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California.”
7
Hill Design Group v. Wang, No. C04-521 JF (RS), 2006 WL 3591206 at *4 (N.D. Cal., Dec.
8
11, 2006) (citing Elan Transdermal Limited v. Cygnus Therapeutic Systems, 809 F. Supp. 1383,
9
1387 (N.D. Cal.1992)). Although no reason is given for Carroll’s request to withdraw, plaintiff
10
consents to it. And, the California standards of professional conduct provide that an attorney
11
may seek permission to withdraw if, among other things, the client knowingly and freely
12
assents to termination of the employment. Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-
13
700(C)(5).
14
Even so, plaintiff can only proceed through an attorney. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) (“A
15
corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only
16
through a member of the bar of this Court”); see also Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506
17
U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a
18
corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel”); In Re Highley,
19
459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972) (“A corporation can appear in a court proceeding only
20
through an attorney at law”). And, plaintiff’s Massachusetts counsel, appearing here on a pro
21
hac vice basis, must have co-counsel who is a member of the bar of this court in good standing
22
and who maintains an office within the State of California. CIV. L.R. 11-3(a)(3).
23
Accordingly, the request to withdraw is denied, without prejudice to renew it upon
24
plaintiff’s retention of other appropriate California counsel who enters an appearance on his
25
behalf in this matter.
26
27
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2013
HOWARD R. LLOYD
28
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
PDF Page 4
Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document46 Filed02/27/13 Page3 of 3
1
5:11-cv-05496-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2
Marvin Nathan Cable
rw@marvincable.com
marvin@marvincable.com, legal@thinkcomputer.com,
3
Michael Brooks Carroll
carroll_law@sbcglobal.net
Peter Keller Southworth
Peter.southworth@doj.ca.gov, Scott.DeMedeiros@doj.ca.gov
4
5
Ryan Marcroft
Ryan.Marcroft@doj.ca.gov, Lois.Carnahan@doj.ca.gov
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Third party AI contribution in government documents
Possible
Document content is reproduced directly from government sources. Think Computer Corporation does not generate, alter, annotate, or summarize documents using artificial intelligence. Some filings in our database may themselves contain AI-generated content submitted by third parties to government agencies.
Back to 
