Black Mountain Equities, Inc. v. Players Network, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion by the defendant corporation's counsel to withdraw from the case and a request to extend the deadline to respond to pending motions. The court denied the motion to withdraw without prejudice because the defendant had not retained replacement counsel, but granted the motion to extend the response deadline.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to withdraw as counsel of record denied without prejudice“Consequently, permitting this withdrawal would leave Players Network, an “artificial” legal entity, proceeding without counsel in direct contravention to this District’s Civil Local Rules. See Civ. L.R. 83.3(j); Rowland, 506 U.S. at 201–02. In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion for leave to withdraw as counsel of record. (ECF No. 63.)” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that corporations cannot appear pro se in federal court. Because the defendant was a corporation and no successor counsel had been retained, allowing the current counsel to withdraw would leave the defendant without legal representation, violating Civil Local Rule 83.3(j). Denying the motion without prejudice is the standard procedural remedy to allow time for the client to retain new counsel. |
Motion to extend time to respond to pending motions granted“In addition, having read and considered the moving papers, and good cause appearing, especially in light of Players Network’s need for new counsel, the Court GRANTS the request for an extension of time for Players Network to respond to Plaintiffs’ pending motions to dismiss and to compel (ECF Nos. 58, 59).” | agree with court The court found good cause for the extension based on the defendant's need to retain new counsel. This is a discretionary ruling within the court's authority to manage the docket and ensure fair proceedings. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal constraint that corporations cannot proceed pro se. It cites the relevant local rule and binding Supreme Court precedent (Rowland) to support the denial of the withdrawal motion. The reasoning is direct and addresses the specific issue of the lack of successor counsel. The grant of the extension is supported by the stated good cause.
Opinion
5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BLACK MOUNTAIN EQUITIES, Case No. 18-cv-1745-BAS-KSC 10 INC., et al., ORDER: 11 Plaintiffs, (1) DENYING WITHOUT 12 v. PREJUDICE MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 13 PLAYERS NETWORK, INC., OF RECORD; AND 14 Defendant. (2) GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO 15 RESPOND TO PENDING MOTIONS 16 [ECF No. 63]
17 18 Presently before the Court is a request by Defendant Players Network, Inc.’s 19 counsel to withdraw from this matter and to extend the time for Players Network to 20 respond to two pending motions. (ECF No. 63.) Players Network is principally 21 represented by Barney C. Ales, Esq. of Barney C. Ales, Ltd. (Ales Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 22 No. 63-2.) Further, Mr. Ales located Guillermo Cabrera, Esq. of The Cabrera Firm, 23 A.P.C. to act as local counsel in the matter. (Id. ¶ 4.) Both counsel seek to withdraw. 24 (ECF No. 63.) 25 In support of the request, Mr. Ales states, “Recently a breakdown has occurred 26 in the attorney-client relationship between me and Players Network.” (Ales Decl. 27 ¶ 5.) And “because Mr. Cabrera’s agreement to act as local counsel in this case was 1 [to] act as counsel for Players Network in this case.” (Id. ¶ 6.) Mr. Ales submits that 2 he “cannot reveal the specifics of the breakdown of the relationship with Players 3 Network without revealing confidential information.” (Mem. 2, ECF No. 63-1.) 4 Parties generally may plead and conduct their own cases personally. 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1654. However, “[o]nly natural persons representing their individual interests in 6 propria persona may appear in court without representation by an attorney.” Civ. 7 L.R. 83.3(j). “All other parties, including corporations, partnerships and other legal 8 entities, may appear in court only through an attorney permitted to practice pursuant 9 to Civil Local Rule 83.3.” Id.; see also Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 10 194, 201–02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that 11 a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel[.]”); 12 United States v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 13 1993) (affirming district court’s entry of default judgment against a corporation when 14 the corporation failed to retain counsel). 15 Here, Players Network’s counsel seek to withdraw themselves as counsel of 16 record for the corporation, which would leave Players Network without counsel. No 17 counsel has appeared on behalf of Players Network to remain in the event counsel 18 are permitted to withdraw, and there is no indication that retaining new counsel for 19 Players Network is imminent. Consequently, permitting this withdrawal would leave 20 Players Network, an “artificial” legal entity, proceeding without counsel in direct 21 contravention to this District’s Civil Local Rules. See Civ. L.R. 83.3(j); Rowland, 22 506 U.S. at 201–02. 23 In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the 24 motion for leave to withdraw as counsel of record. (ECF No. 63.) If Players Network 25 is unable to retain new counsel in anticipation of counsel’s withdrawal within the 26 next thirty days, Mr. Ales and Mr. Cabrera may file a renewed motion no earlier 27 than January 21, 2020, to withdraw themselves as counsel of record. If a renewed 1 ||to the ongoing relationship with Players Network. In the event Players Network 2 ||retains new counsel within the next thirty days, including local counsel if necessary, 3 ||Mr. Ales and Mr. Cabrera may immediately seek leave to withdraw as counsel. 4 In addition, having read and considered the moving papers, and good cause 5 || appearing, especially in light of Players Network’s need for new counsel, the Court 6 || GRANTS the request for an extension of time for Players Network to respond to 7 || Plaintiffs’ pending motions to dismiss and to compel (ECF Nos. 58, 59). Players 8 || Network shall respond to these motions no later than February 3, 2020. Any replies 9 ||shall be filed no later than February 17, 2020. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Il f 12 || DATED: December 18, 2019 (pil 4 (Sypha □□ 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28