Free Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02119-H-POR

Document 21

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 1 of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AQUA LOGIC, INC., vs. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 07-CV-2119-H (POR) ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE QUINTANA LAW GROUP'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

ESEALIFE, INC.; ESEALIFE AQUATICS, INC.; and DOES 1-10 inclusive., Defendant.

On November 5, 2007, Plaintiff Aqua Logic, Inc. ("Plaintiff") brought this action for trademark infringement and related claims against defendants eSealife, Inc. and eSealife Aquatics, Inc. ("Defendants"). (Doc. No. 1.) Since their initial appearance, Defendants have been represented by Andres Quintana of the Quintana Law Group ("QLG"). On April 18, 2008, QLG submitted a motion to withdraw as attorney for Defendants. (Doc. No. 15.) Plaintiff responded on May 9, 2008, stating that it has no objection to the motion to withdraw. (Doc. No. 18.) The Court submits this motion on the papers without oral argument, pursuant to its discretion under Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1). QLG represents that Defendants have consented to its withdrawal as counsel. QLG also states that, beginning on or around April 15, 2008, Defendants shut their

-1-

07cv2119

Case 3:07-cv-02119-H-POR

Document 21

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 2 of 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

doors, were no longer generating revenue, and could no longer pay QLG for fees expected in this case. Furthermore, Defendants have not payed certain fees already incurred. QLG further indicates that Defendants would be unable to assist QLG in conducting discovery and otherwise preparing their defense. QLG has provided Defendants with notice of its intention to withdraw and the possible consequences of failure to appear. See Local Civil Rule 83.3(g)(3) (requiring service of motion to withdraw on moving attorney's client). The Court understands the reason for withdrawal. Because Defendants are both corporate entities that cannot proceed pro se, however, withdrawal without substitute counsel may prevent Defendants from appearing in this case. The Court has an interest in the efficient resolution of its cases that would be frustrated by Defendants' inability to appear. The Court also notes that recent proceedings before the magistrate judge indicate that a settlement may be reached, thus minimizing the burden on QLG. Accordingly, the Court denies the request without prejudice to QLG submitting a new request as the case continues, with proposed new counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 13, 2008 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COPIES TO: All parties of record.

-2-

07cv2119