P.I.C. International, Inc. v. Gooper Hermetic, LTD. ( 2020 )

5 JUN ~4 2020 3 SOUTHERN gi Thi Ot □□□□□□□□□ BY DEPUTY 4 5 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 | P.IL.C. INTERNATIONAL, INC. d.b.a. Case No.: 3:19-cv-00734-BEN-LL i H2Odyssey, a California corporation, Plaintife | ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 . "| WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF 13 || . RECORD FOR DEFENDANT STEVE 14 GOOPER HERMETIC, LTD., a Israeli CHARLES GOLDSTEIN limited company; and STEVE CHARLES | - [Doc. No. 63] 15 || GOLDSTEIN, an individual residing in ao 16 California; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, □ Defendants. 17 18 Before the Court is a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant Steve Charles 19 || Goldstein (“Defendant Goldstein”) filed by Defendant Goldstein’s counsel’. The Court 20 || finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. 21 After reviewing all related filings, the Court grants the Motion. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On or around February. 18, 2017, P.I.C. International, Inc. d.b.a. H2Odyssey 24 ||(“Plaintiff’) and Defendant Goldstein entered into a written partnership agreement to 25. || jointly control, contribute money and/or services to, and share profits from a joint venture 26 27 ! Counsel of record that are moving to withdraw are David A. Peck, Alexandra L. 2 Shipman and the law firm Coast Law Group, LLP. □ 1 the sale and distribution of magnetically sealed bags and other products which use a 2 magnetically sealed device for closure, (Doe. No. 63. at 2.) Plaintiff removed Defendant 3 ||Goldstein from the Partnership on or around October 18, 2018. See Id. 4 On April 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed claims against former Defendant Gooper Hermetic, 5 ||Ltd. (Defendant Gooper”) and Defendant Goldstein for False Patent Marketing, 6 || Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement, and False Advertising under the Lanham Act. 7 |\id. Plaintiff argues that Defendant Goldstein is liable for false patent marking and false 8 || advertising claims by virtue of his role as a sales representative of former Defendant 9 ||Gooper. Jd. Defendant Goldstein denies such allegations. Jd. □ 10 On May 22, 2019, Defendant Goldstein filed his answer pro se. On June 19, 2019, 11 ||Mandour & Associates, APC appeared on behalf of Goldstein and filed the First 12 || Amended Answer. Jd. On October 3, 2019, Mandour & Associates withdrew as counsel 13 || for Defendant Golstein. Id. On November 5, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Goldstein’s Motion to Substitute Attorney for counsel of record Coast Law Group, LLP 15 ||(Doc. No, 35). Jd. Counsel for Defendant Goldstein filed this Motion on May 5, 2020. 16 ||(Doc.No.63.) : 17 Il. LEGAL STANDARD 18 An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court. Kassab v. San 19 || Diego Police Dep’t, 2008 WL 251935, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan 29, 2008); see also Beard v. 20 || Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Fed. 13, 2008). 21 Additionally, under local rules, an attorney must serve notice of its motion to withdraw 22 ||on the adverse party as well as on the moving party’s client with a declaration of service. 23 || Local Civ. R. 83.3(g)(3). - 24, “In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons why 25 || withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the . 26 ||harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; (4) the degree to which 27 || withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Garrett v. Ruiz, 2013 WL 163420 28 |1(S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013). 2 1 Ili. DISCUSSION □ 2 In the present case, Defendant Goldstein’s counsel seeks to withdraw because (1) 3 || Defendant Goldstein has instructed them that he “wishes to represent himself pro se 4 || moving forward with this action” (Doc. No. 63 at 2); and (2) his instructions have made 5 impossible for counsel of record to provide adequate representation. Specifically, “[o]n 6 27, 2020, Defendant Goldstein wrote to Coast Law Group (“CLG”) via email 7 ||correspondence stating he would be representing himself in this matter moving ||forward.”? Id. at 3. The California Rules of Professional Conduct permit withdrawal of counsel when a client’s conduct “renders it unreasonably difficult for the [attorney] to 10 jicarry out the employment effectively.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d). 11 ||Defendant’s instructions that counsel should not to act or litigate any matter regarding the 12 ||instant case because he intends to proceed pro se from this point forward, have made it 13 unreasonably difficult for Defendant’s counsel to effectively represent their client. Deal 14 Countrywide Home Loans, No. C 09-01643 SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2-4 (N.D. 15 Sept. 15, 2010) (finding that where the client has made it unreasonably difficult to _ 16 |}carry out effective representation by their counsel, withdrawal of counsel is warranted); 17 || see also Brooke v. SB Hosp. Palm Springs, LLC, No. 5:16-cv-00953-ODW(SS), 2017 18 || WL 187132, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2017) (same). Moreover, Defendant Goldstein 19 having been advised of the status of the litigation, the risks of proceeding pro se, and that 20 should seek new counsel, has expressly affirmed that he consents to CLG’s 21 || withdrawal. See Jd. Finally, the record also reflects that the Motion was served on the 22 Plaintiff and Defendant Goldstein as required by Local Civil Rule 83.3. Neither Plaintiff 23 ||nor Defendant Goldstein opposed or otherwise filed any response to the Motion. 24 The Court finds that Defendant Goldstein’s instruction to counsel that he wished to 25 ||represent himself pro se moving forward, constitutes good cause for withdrawal. 26 __ 27 28 2 “CLG and Goldstein further communicated about his intention to represent himself pro.se over the course of several days.” (Doc. No. 63 at 3.) 3 . 1 || Defendant Goldstein’s instructions have rendered it nearly impossible for Defendant’s 2 || counsel to proceed further in this action. While the Court recognizes that delay may 3 j/result, the Court finds there is good cause and the ends of justice require withdrawal. See 4 83. IV. CONCLUSION. 6|| For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that: 7 1. Defendant Goldstein’s Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED; 8 2. Defendant Goldstein may proceed pro se — without counsel; 9 3. The Clerk of Court SHALL update the docket to reflect the withdrawal of 10 David A. Peck, Alexandra L. Shipman, and Coast Law Group, as counsel of li record -for Defendant Steve Charles Goldstein; 4. Defendant Counsel SHALL immediately serve the Defendant Goldstein with a 13 copy of this Order and thereafter file a proof of service to confirm the same; 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 4. / 16 2020 Kesey HonRogerT. Benitez 7 . Urtited States District Judge 18 20 oe 21 23 □ 24 25 26 27 || 28