United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 2019

Black Mountain Equities, Inc. v. Players Network, Inc.

Black Mountain Equities, Inc. v. Players Network, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of California · Decided December 18, 2019
Black Mountain Equities, Inc. v. Players Network, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BLACK MOUNTAIN EQUITIES, Case No. 18-cv-1745-BAS-KSC INC., et al., ORDER: 11 Plaintiffs, (1) DENYING WITHOUT 12 v. PREJUDICE MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL PLAYERS NETWORK, INC., OF RECORD; AND 14 Defendant. (2) GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO 15 RESPOND TO PENDING MOTIONS [ECF No. 63] 18 Presently before the Court is a request by Defendant Players Network, Inc.’s counsel to withdraw from this matter and to extend the time for Players Network to respond to two pending motions. (ECF No. 63.) Players Network is principally represented by Barney C. Ales, Esq. of Barney C. Ales, Ltd. (Ales Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 63-2.) Further, Mr. Ales located Guillermo Cabrera, Esq. of The Cabrera Firm, 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 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 [to] act as counsel for Players Network in this case.” (Id. ¶ 6.) Mr. Ales submits that he “cannot reveal the specifics of the breakdown of the relationship with Players 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. § 1654. However, “[o]nly natural persons representing their individual interests in propria persona may appear in court without representation by an attorney.” Civ. L.R. 83.3(j). “All other parties, including corporations, partnerships and other legal entities, may appear in court only through an attorney permitted to practice pursuant 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 a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel[.]”); United States v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming district court’s entry of default judgment against a corporation when the corporation failed to retain counsel).

15 Here, Players Network’s counsel seek to withdraw themselves as counsel of record for the corporation, which would leave Players Network without counsel. No counsel has appeared on behalf of Players Network to remain in the event counsel are permitted to withdraw, and there is no indication that retaining new counsel for Players Network is imminent. 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.

23 In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion for leave to withdraw as counsel of record. (ECF No. 63.) If Players Network is unable to retain new counsel in anticipation of counsel’s withdrawal within the next thirty days, Mr. Ales and Mr. Cabrera may file a renewed motion no earlier than January 21, 2020, to withdraw themselves as counsel of record. If a renewed ||to the ongoing relationship with Players Network. In the event Players Network ||retains new counsel within the next thirty days, including local counsel if necessary, ||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 || 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). Players || Network shall respond to these motions no later than February 3, 2020. Any replies ||shall be filed no later than February 17, 2020.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Il f || DATED: December 18, 2019 (pil 4 (Sypha □□ 13 United States District Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.