1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GILDA VERSALES, Case No. 24-cv-04044-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO 9 v. WITHDRAW

10 AI COIN, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 36 Defendant. 11

12 13 Now pending before the Court is RIMȎN, P.C. and Ivan L. Tjoe’s motion to withdraw as 14 counsel for Defendant Ai Coin Inc. (Dkt. No. 36.) Having carefully reviewed the submissions, 15 the Court concludes oral argument is not required, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), vacates the July 16 17, 2025 hearing, and GRANTS the motion. Defendant remains represented by John Lane of 17 Gunner Cooke, who—if he remains Defendant’s counsel of record in this action—must retain 18 substitute local co-counsel by August 29, 2025. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Mr. Tjoe is a partner at RIMȎN. (Dkt. No. 36-1 ¶ 1.) In July 2024, Mr. Lane of Gunner 21 Cooke—representing Defendant in this matter—contacted Mr. Tjoe about acting as “local counsel 22 for initial filings and local practice guide.” (Id. ¶ 2.) In August 2024, Mr. Cooke “secured and 23 forwarded a signature for RIMȎN to its engagement agreement with Defendant.” (Id.) Consistent 24 with that agreement, RIMȎN sent Defendant invoices on approximately November 5, 2024, 25 December 5, 2024, and January 6, 2025. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) RIMȎN sent a final invoice on January 23, 26 2025. (Id. ¶ 4.) Defendant has not paid any of the invoices. (Id. ¶ 3.) Under the fee agreement, 27 1 RIMȎN may terminate its engagement for lack of timely payment of its invoices.1 (Id.) 2 On June 9, 2025, RIMȎN advised Defendant it “needed to withdraw immediately as 3 counsel of record herein for its consistent refusal to pay RIMȎN’s invoices.” (Id. ¶ 7.) RIMȎN 4 also communicated its intent to withdraw to Mr. Lane, who “confirmed that he does not oppose 5 this motion to withdraw but may have to also move to withdraw as counsel.” (Id. ¶ 8.) 6 DISCUSSION 7 Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) provides “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until 8 relieved by order of the Court after written notice has been provided, reasonably in advance, to the 9 client and to all other parties who have appeared in the case.” “In this district, the conduct of 10 counsel, including withdrawal of counsel, is governed by the standards of professional conduct 11 required of members of the State Bar of California.” Russell v. Maman, No. 18-CV-06691-RS, 12

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2020). “Ultimately, the decision to grant or deny 13 an attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel is committed to the sound discretion of the trial 14 court.”

(cleaned up). 15 RIMȎN seeks to withdraw on “the grounds that Defendant has not paid any fees due to 16 RIMȎN beyond a de minimis retainer required as part the engagement agreement and RIMȎN has 17 not received any assurances from Defendant that such fees will ever be paid.” (Dkt. No. 36 at 2.) 18 The California Rules of Professional Conduct permit an attorney to withdraw from representation 19 if a client “breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees.” Rule 3- 20 700(C)(1)(f). Here, Defendant breached its agreement with RIMȎN requiring “timely payment of 21 [RIMȎN’s] invoices.” (Dkt. No. 36-1 ¶ 3.) That is, RIMȎN sent invoices in November and 22 December 2024 and January 2025, which Defendant has not paid. (Id. ¶ 4.) Nor has Defendant 23 disputed the invoices, which are “deemed accurate, fair and reasonable within 15 days from 24 receipt.” (Id. ¶ 3.) The only payment RIMȎN received from Defendant was “an initial de 25 minimis retainer” transmitted by Gunner Cooke, which has been exhausted. (Id. ¶ 4.) 26 1 Although Mr. Tjoe’s declaration states “RIMȎN may terminate its engagement for timely 27 payment of its invoices,” (Dkt. No. 36-1 ¶ 3), the Court understands Mr. Tjoe to mean—as stated 1 Consistent with California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(A), RIMȎN “has taken 2 reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client,” including 3 notifying Defendant of its intent to withdraw and notifying Defendant that as a corporate entity, it 4 cannot “represent itself in the event that [Mr. Lane] also need[s] to withdraw as counsel of 5 record.” (Dkt. No. 36-1 ¶ 7.) Moreover, because RIMȎN was not “involved in any matters of 6 substance” in this matter, any prejudice from RIMȎN’s withdrawal is minimal. (Id. ¶ 5.) Because 7 Defendant breached its fee agreement with RIMȎN, and because the California Rules of 8 Professional Conduct permit withdrawal for such breach, the Court GRANTS the motion of 9 RIMȎN and Mr. Tjoe to withdraw as counsel for Defendant. 10 Defendant, as a corporation, “may appear in the federal courts only through licensed 11 counsel.” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council,

, 12 202 (1993). Defendant remains represented by Mr. Lane of Gunner Cooke, so Defendant need not 13 secure substitute counsel at this time. That said, unless Mr. Lane moves to withdraw as 14 Defendant’s counsel of record, Mr. Lane must retain substitute local co-counsel. Mr. Lane, a 15 member of the New York bar, applied to appear pro hac vice in this action. (Dkt. No. 25.) His 16 application listed Mr. Tjoe as local co-counsel. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 11-3(a)(2) (an applicant 17 applying to appear pro hac vice must submit an oath certifying “[t]hat an attorney, identified by 18 name and office address, who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who 19 maintains an office within the State of California, is designated as co-counsel.”). With RIMȎN’s 20 withdrawal from this action, Mr. Lane no longer has local co-counsel as required by this District’s 21 Civil Local Rules. The Court grants Mr. Lane 50 days to retain new local co-counsel. 22 There is a further CMC in this case on September 3, 2025. (Dkt. No. 38.) If, on 23 September 3, 2025, Mr. Lane remains Defendant’s attorney and local counsel has not made an 24 appearance, Mr. Lane should be prepared to address revocation of his pro hac vice status in this 25 matter. 26 CONCLUSION 27 The Court GRANTS RIMȎN and Mr. Tjoe’s motion to withdraw as counsel for 1 local co-counsel by August 29, 2025 if he remains Defendant’s counsel of record. 2 This Order disposes of Docket No. 36. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: July 10, 2025 5 6 ne ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28